Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford


  • Matthias von DavierEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1341-1


It seems that even a major professional society devoted to Psychometrics has to explain what is meant by the term. Four contemporary scholars were asked, and their somewhat similar responses were put on the society’s website (https://www.psychometricsociety.org/content/what-psychometrics). Some explanations used Galton’s (1879) definition regarding imposing measures or numbers onto “operations of the mind,” other appear somewhat circular as they seem to define the term by quantitative psychology. This is tempting, of course, to explain something by pointing towards something else that appears to be a bit more descriptive. An example is a subtitle, more specifically the subtitle one of the leading journals in the domain uses. In this sense, psychometrics is quantitative psychology, as Psychometrika is “… a journal of quantitative psychology”. The pre-1984 subtitle of the journal suggests that the field (and journal) is “…devoted to the development of psychology as a...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bock, R. D. (1997). A brief history of item response theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 21–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00605.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cudeck, R., & MacCallum, R. C. (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Green, B. F., Jr. (1952). Latent structure analysis and its relation to factor analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Henry. (1999). Latent structure analysis at fifty. Paper presented at the 1999 Joint statistical meetings, Baltimore MD, August 11, 1999. https://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/papers/1999_102.pdf
  7. Henson, R., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. PNAS, 110(15), 5802–5805.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macready, G. B., & Dayton, C. M. (1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Moustaki, I., & Knott, M. (2000). Generalized latent trait models. Psychometrika, 65, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mulaik, S. A. (1987). A brief history of the philosophical foundations of exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 267–305.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2203_3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). Generalized multilevel structural equation modelling. Psychometrika, 69, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rijmen, F., Jeon, M., von Davier, M., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2014). A third order item response theory model for modeling the effects of domains and subdomains in large-scale educational assessment surveys. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 32–60.  https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614531045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Takane, Y., & De Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Traub, R. (1997). Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 8–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00603.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. von Davier, M. (2009). Some notes on the reinvention of latent structure models as diagnostic classification models. Measurement – Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 7(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. von Davier, M. (2013). The DINA model as a constrained general diagnostic model – two variants of a model equivalency. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 49–71. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bmsp.12003/abstract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. von Davier, M. (2014). The log-linear cognitive diagnostic model (LCDM) as a special case of the general diagnostic model (GDM). ETS Research Report Series. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ets2.12043/abstract.
  24. von Davier, M. (2016). Chapter 3: The Rasch model. In W. van der Linden & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  25. von Davier, M., & Haberman, S. (2014). Hierarchical diagnostic classification models morphing into unidimensional ‘diagnostic’ classification models – A commentary. Psychometrika.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9363-z.
  26. von Davier, M., & Rost, J. (2016). Chapter 23: Logistic mixture-distribution response models. In W. van der Linden & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  27. von Davier, M., Naemi, B., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Factorial versus typological models: A comparison of methods for personality data. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10(4), 185–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME)PhiladelphiaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Matthias Ziegler
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany