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...
- 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
- Cudeck, R., & MacCallum, R. C. (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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
- McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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