Method effects and the meaning of measurement

Although the idea of a method effect in psychological measurement seems intuitively straightforward—that is, it is said to occur when any characteristic of a measurement procedure contributes variance to scores beyond what is attributable to variance in the attribute of interest—much of the surround...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andrew eMaul
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-04-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00169/full
id doaj-c0d50d63c1a9489b986dfb7367887e79
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c0d50d63c1a9489b986dfb7367887e792020-11-24T23:23:20ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782013-04-01410.3389/fpsyg.2013.0016941662Method effects and the meaning of measurementAndrew eMaul0University of Colorado, BoulderAlthough the idea of a method effect in psychological measurement seems intuitively straightforward—that is, it is said to occur when any characteristic of a measurement procedure contributes variance to scores beyond what is attributable to variance in the attribute of interest—much of the surrounding conceptual vocabulary remains confused. In part, these confusions can be traced to deeper confusion in the human science literature regarding the meaning of measurement. In particular, the thinking of human scientists about method effects has been shaped by (a) received wisdom regarding why method effects are problematic to begin with, and, therefore, what corrective measures are appropriate, (b) the formal and implied semantics of psychometric techniques that have been developed to model method effects, and (c) general philosophical undercurrents that have contributed to the collective understanding of psychological measurement. Notably, tensions between lines of thought that can be broadly characterized as empiricist and realist have contributed to uneven thinking surrounding the concept of a method effect. In this paper, it is argued that it may be possible to formulate an account of what method effects are that is coherent not only across different research traditions in the human sciences, but also with thinking found in other scientific disciplines; however, doing so requires a more explicit commitment to a realist position on measurement than is generally forthcoming from human scientists. By examining these issues, this paper hopes to contribute to semantic clarity regarding not just method effects, but also the meaning of measurement in psychology.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00169/fullsemanticsgeneralized latent variable modelsmeasurement theorymethod effectsscientific realismmulti-trait multi-method
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andrew eMaul
spellingShingle Andrew eMaul
Method effects and the meaning of measurement
Frontiers in Psychology
semantics
generalized latent variable models
measurement theory
method effects
scientific realism
multi-trait multi-method
author_facet Andrew eMaul
author_sort Andrew eMaul
title Method effects and the meaning of measurement
title_short Method effects and the meaning of measurement
title_full Method effects and the meaning of measurement
title_fullStr Method effects and the meaning of measurement
title_full_unstemmed Method effects and the meaning of measurement
title_sort method effects and the meaning of measurement
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2013-04-01
description Although the idea of a method effect in psychological measurement seems intuitively straightforward—that is, it is said to occur when any characteristic of a measurement procedure contributes variance to scores beyond what is attributable to variance in the attribute of interest—much of the surrounding conceptual vocabulary remains confused. In part, these confusions can be traced to deeper confusion in the human science literature regarding the meaning of measurement. In particular, the thinking of human scientists about method effects has been shaped by (a) received wisdom regarding why method effects are problematic to begin with, and, therefore, what corrective measures are appropriate, (b) the formal and implied semantics of psychometric techniques that have been developed to model method effects, and (c) general philosophical undercurrents that have contributed to the collective understanding of psychological measurement. Notably, tensions between lines of thought that can be broadly characterized as empiricist and realist have contributed to uneven thinking surrounding the concept of a method effect. In this paper, it is argued that it may be possible to formulate an account of what method effects are that is coherent not only across different research traditions in the human sciences, but also with thinking found in other scientific disciplines; however, doing so requires a more explicit commitment to a realist position on measurement than is generally forthcoming from human scientists. By examining these issues, this paper hopes to contribute to semantic clarity regarding not just method effects, but also the meaning of measurement in psychology.
topic semantics
generalized latent variable models
measurement theory
method effects
scientific realism
multi-trait multi-method
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00169/full
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewemaul methodeffectsandthemeaningofmeasurement
_version_ 1725564042904338432