Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7mr9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T06:33:17.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Sum Scores a Great Accomplishment of Psychometrics or Intuitive Test Theory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Robert J. Mislevy
Robert J. Mislevy*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland at College Park
*
Correspondence should be made to Robert J. Mislevy, University of Maryland at College Park, MD, USA. Email: rmislevy@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sijtsma, Ellis, and Borsboom (Psychometrika, 89:84-117, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-024-09964-7 ) provide a thoughtful treatment in Psychometrika of the value and properties of sum scores and classical test theory at a depth at which few practicing psychometricians are familiar. In this note, I offer comments on their article from the perspective of evidentiary reasoning.

Keywords

intuitive test theoryevidentiary reasoningP-primssum scores
Type
Theory & Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 89 , Issue 4 , December 2024 , pp. 1170 - 1174
Copyright
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bock, R. D., Thissen, D., & Zimowski, M. F. (1997). IRT estimation of domain scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(3), 197–211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1435442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, H. I., Mislevy, R. J. (2005). Intuitive test theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 488–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In Gentner, D., Stevens, A. L. (Eds), Mental models, New York: Psychology Press 15–33.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limón  & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 28-60). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47637-1_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. (1888). The statistics of examinations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 51, 599–635.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. (1890). The element of chance in competitive examinations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 53, pp. 460–475, 644–663.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., Schum, D. A. (1996). A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J. (2003). Evidentiary relationships among data-gathering methods and reporting scales in surveys of educational achievement. CSE Technical Report #595. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480556.pdf.Google Scholar
McNeish, D. (2024). Practical implications of sum scores being psychometrics’ greatest accomplishment. Psychometrika.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schum, D. A. (2001). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Sijtsma, K., Ellis, J. L., Borsboom, D. (2024). Recognize the value of the sum score, psychometrics’ greatest accomplishment. Psychometrika, 89, 84–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigmore, J. H. (1937). The science of judicial proof, 3 Boston: Little, Brown, & Co..Google Scholar