Measurement and Mind: Unveiling the Self-Delusion of Metrification in Psychology

References

• Adroher, N. D., Prodinger, B., Fellinghauer, C. S., Tennant, A., & Huang, J. (2018). All metrics are equal, but some metrics are more equal than others: A systematic search and review on the use of the term ‘metric’. Public Library of Science One, 13(3), e0193861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193861
   Google Scholar
• Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), 1–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 38(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacon, F. (1762). Novum organum scientiarum. Venetiis, Typis G. Girardi.
   Google Scholar
• Ballou, D. (2009, October). Test scaling and value-added measurement. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 351–383. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2009.4.4.351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgarten, F. (1933). Die Charaktereigenschaften. A. Francke.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, H. (2021). A unifying framework for parallel and distributed processing in r using futures. The R Journal, 13(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2021-048
   Google Scholar
• Berglund, B., Rossi, G. B., & Townsend, J. T. (Eds.). (2012). Measurements with persons: Theory, methods, and implementation areas. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Böhme, G. (1974). Über Kants Unterscheidung von extensiven und intensiven Größen. Kant-Studien – Philosophische Zeitschrift der Kant-Gesellschaft, 65(1–4), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1515/kant.1974.65.1-4.239
   Google Scholar
• Böhme, G. (1976). Quantifizierung — Metrisierung. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 7(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01800763
   Google Scholar
• Böhme, G. (1993). Am Ende des Baconschen Zeitalters. Suhrkamp Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, T., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2020). Applying the rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030499
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2008). Latent variable theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 6(1–2), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035497
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2004). Why psychometrics is not pathological a comment on Michell. Theory & Psychology, 14(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354304040200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, N. R. (1921). What is science? Methuen & Co. ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. (2014). Spatial language and abstract concepts. WIREs Cognitive Science, 5(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, H. (1995). Circularity and reliability in measurement. Perspectives on Science, 3(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00479
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cliff, N. (1992). Abstract measurement theory and the revolution that never happened. Psychological Science, 3(3), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00024.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornejo, C., & Valsiner, J. (2021). Mathematical thinking, social practices, and the locus of science in psychology. In A pragmatic perspective of measurement (pp. vii–xi). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74025-2
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díez, J. A. (1997a). A hundred years of numbers. An historical introduction to measurement theory 1887-1990. Part i: The formation period. two lines of research: Axiomatics and real morphisms, scales and invariance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 28(1), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(96)00014-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díez, J. A. (1997b). A hundred years of numbers. An historical introduction to measurement theory 1887-1990. Part ii: Suppes and the mature theory. representation and uniqueness. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 28(2), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-3681(96)00015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doignon, J.-P., Ducamp, A., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1984). On realizable biorders and the biorder dimension of a relation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(1), 73–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(84)90020-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ducamp, A., & Falmagne, J. C. (1969, October). Composite measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6(3), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(69)90012-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duhem, P. M. M. (1908). La théorie physique, son objet et sa structure [Ziel und Struktur der physikalischen Theorien]. (F. Adler, Trans.). J. A. Barth.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582
   Google Scholar
• Fechner, G. T. (1858). Das Psychische Maß. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 32, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Fechner, G. T. (1860a). Elemente der Psychophysik I (Vol. 1). Breitkopf und Härtel.
   Google Scholar
• Fechner, G. T. (1860b). Elemente der Psychophysik II (Vol. 2). Breitkopf und Härtel.
   Google Scholar
• Feuerstahler, L. (2023). Scale type revisited: Some misconceptions, misinterpretations, and recommendations. Psych, 5(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5020018
   Google Scholar
• Feynman, R. P. (1974). Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37(7), 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, G. H. (1995). Derivations of the Rasch Model. In G. H. Fischer & W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch Models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 15–38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4230-7\_2
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2014). Spatial associations in numerical cognition—from single digits to arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1461–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.927515
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortis, J.-M. (2020). From localism to neolocalism. In É. Aussant & J.-M. Fortis (Eds.), Historical journey in a linguistic archipelago: Descriptive concepts and case studies (Vol. 3, pp. 15–50). Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4269409
   Google Scholar
• Frängsmyr, T., Heilbron, J. L., & Rider, R. E. (Eds.). (1990). The quantifying spirit in the 18th century (Vol. 7). University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fréchet, M. R. (1906). Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel ( Monographie).
   Google Scholar
• Frost, W. (1927). Bacon und die Naturphilosophie (Vol. 20). Verlag Ernst Reinhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185.
   Google Scholar
• Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377100800312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guttman, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086306
   Google Scholar
• Guttman, L. (1947). The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7(2), 247–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316444700700204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrell, F. E., Jr. (2023). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous (R package version 5.1-0) [Computer software manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
   Google Scholar
• Hausdorff, F. (1914). Grundzüge der Mengenlehre. Veit & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Heene, M. (2013). Additive conjoint measurement and the resistance toward falsifiability in psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heine, J.-H. (2020). Untersuchungen zum Antwortverhalten und zu Modellen der Skalierung bei der Messung psychologischer Konstrukte. Monographie, Universität der Bundeswehr, München, Neubiberg. https://athene-forschung.unibw.de/132861
   Google Scholar
• Heine, J.-H. (2023). pairwise: Rasch model parameters by pairwise algorithm [Computer software manual]. Retrieved April 17, 2023, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pairwise
   Google Scholar
• Hölder, O. (1901, January). Die Axiome der Quantität und die Lehre vom Mass. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Mathematisch-Physische Classe, 53, 1–64.
   Google Scholar
• Hoppe-Blank, J. (2015). Vom metrischen System zum Internationalen Einheitensystem: 100 Jahre Meterkonvention. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). https://doi.org/10.7795/110.20150519H
   Google Scholar
• Humphry, S. M. (2011). The role of the unit in physics and psychometrics. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.558442
   Google Scholar
• Irtel, H. (1987). On specific objectivity as a concept in measurement. In E. E. Roskam & R. Suck (Eds.), Progress in mathematical psychology 1 (pp. 35–45). North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kant, I. (1781). Critik der reinen Vernunft (1st ed.). Hartknoch. https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/show/kant_rvernunft_1781
   Google Scholar
• Kant, I. (1911). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Vol. 3, zweite, hin und wieder verbesserte Auflage ed.). Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Verlag von Georg Reimer. (Original work published 1787)
   Google Scholar
• Kantor, J. R. (1938). The operational principle in the physical and psychological sciences. The Psychological Record, 2(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393211
   Google Scholar
• Karabatsos, G. (2001). The Rasch model, additive conjoint measurement, and new models of probabilistic measurement theory. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2(4), 389–423.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kehlmann, D. (2007). Measuring the World. riverrun.
   Google Scholar
• Klages, L. (1926). Die Grundlagen der Charakterkunde. Barth.
   Google Scholar
• Koch, S. (1992, January). Psychology’s Bridgman vs Bridgman’s Bridgman an essay in reconstruction. Theory & Psychology, 2(3), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354392023002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krantz, D. H., Suppes, P., & Luce, R. D. (1971). Foundations of measurement: Additive and polynomial representations (Vol. 1). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kromrey, H. (1994). Empirische Sozialforschung (6th ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Kubinger, K. D., & Draxler, C. (2007). Probleme bei der Testkonstruktion nach dem Rasch-Modell. Diagnostica, 53(3), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.3.131
   Google Scholar
• Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391
   Google Scholar
• Kyngdon, A. (2008a). Conjoint measurement, error and the Rasch model a reply to Michell, and Borsboom and Zand Scholten. Theory & Psychology, 18(1), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyngdon, A. (2008b). The rasch model from the perspective of the representational theory of measurement. Theory & Psychology, 18(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyngdon, A. (2011a). Plausible measurement analogies to some psychometric models of test performance: Plausible conjoint systems. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 64(3), 478–497. https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8317.002004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyngdon, A. (2011b). Psychological measurement needs units, ratios, and real quantities: A commentary on Humphry. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 9(1), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.558791
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2009). The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for a mind-based mathematics. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (Transferred to digital print ed., pp. 21–89). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lehman, G. (1983). Testheorie: Eine systematische Übersicht. In H. Feger & J. Bredenkamp (Eds.), Messen und Testen (pp. 427–543). Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie.
   Google Scholar
• Leunbach, G. (1961). On quantitative models for qualitative data. Acta Sociologica, 5(3), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169936200500113
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. American Psychologist, 8(12), 750–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063675
   Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D. (2005). Measurement analogies: Comparisons of behavioral and physical measures*. Psychometrika, 70(2), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-004-1248-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maraun, M. D. (1998). Measurement as a normative practice: Implications of Wittgenstein’s philosophy for measurement in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8(4), 435–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398084001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markus, K. A., & Borsboom, D. (2012). The cat came back: Evaluating arguments against psychological measurement. Theory & Psychology, 22(4), 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310381155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, S. F. (1956). Main currents of scientific thought: A history of the sciences. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Maul, A., Torres Irribarra, D., & Wilson, M. (2016). On the philosophical foundations of psychological measurement. Measurement, 79, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mausfeld, R. (1994). Von Zahlzeichen zu Skalen. In T. Herrmann & W. H. Tack (Eds.), Methodologische Grundlagen der Psychologie (Vol. Forschungsmethoden der Psychologie, Band. 1, pp. 556–603). Hogrefe–Verlag für Psychologie.
   Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s ‘adequacy taxonomy’: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 710–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meinel, C. (1984). In physicis futurum saeculum respicio: Joachim Jungius und die Naturwissenschaftliche Revolution des 17. Jahrhunderts ( No. 52). Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (1993, June). The origins of the representational theory of measurement: Helmholtz, Hölder, and Russell. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 24(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(93)90045-L
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: Critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory & Psychology, 10(5), 639–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354300105004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2004). Item response models, pathological science and the shape of error reply to Borsboom and Mellenbergh. Theory & Psychology, 14(1), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354304040201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2005). Measurement in psychology: Critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2006). Psychophysics, intensive magnitudes, and the psychometricians’ fallacy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(3), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.011
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008a, January). Conjoint measurement and the Rasch paradox a response to Kyngdon. Theory & Psychology, 18(1), 119–124. 00024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307086926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008b, May). Is psychometrics pathological science? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 6(1–2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035489
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2014, February). The Rasch paradox, conjoint measurement, and psychometrics: Response to Humphry and Sijtsma. Theory & Psychology, 24(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313517524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2021). Representational measurement theory: Is its number up? Theory & Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320930817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mislevy, R. J. (1987). Chapter 6: Recent developments in item response theory with implications for teacher certification. Review of Research in Education, 14(1), 239–275. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X014001239
   Google Scholar
• Narens, L., & Luce, R. D. (1986). Measurement: The theory of numerical assignments. Psychological Bulletin, 99(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nedelcea, C., Ciorbea, I., & Ion, A. G. (2012). Using metaphorical items for describing personality constructs. Procedia - Social & Behavioral Sciences, (33), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.107
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Osterlind, S. J. (1990). Toward a uniform definition of a test item. Educational Research Quarterly, 14(4), 2–5
   Google Scholar
• Perline, R., Wright, B. D., & Wainer, H. (1979). The rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167900300213
   Google Scholar
• Pfanzagl, J. (1959). A general theory of measurement applications to utility. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 6(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800060404
   Google Scholar
• Pfanzagl, J. (1971). Theory of measurement (2nd ed.). Physica-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Vol. 1). Danmarks pædagogiske Institut.
   Google Scholar
• Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In Proceedings of the fourth berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (Vol. 4, pp. 321–333).
   Google Scholar
• Rasch, G. (1977). On specific objectivity: An attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 14(1), 58–94. https://doi.org/10.1163/24689300-01401006
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Russell, B. (1903/2010). Principles of mathematics. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Saint-Mont, U. (2012). What measurement is all about. Theory & Psychology, 22(4), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311429997
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salzberger, T. (2010). Does the rasch model convert an ordinal scale into an interval Scale? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 24(2), 1273–1275.
   Google Scholar
• Salzberger, T. (2013). Attempting measurement of psychological attributes. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 75. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheiblechner, H. (1995). Isotonic ordinal probabilistic models (ISOP). Psychometrika, 60(2), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02301417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheiblechner, H. (2003). Nonparametric IRT: Testing the bi-isotonicity of isotonic probabilistic models (ISOP). Psychometrika, 68(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schönemann, P. H. (1981). Factorial definitions of intelligence: Dubious legacy of dogma in data analysis. In I. Borg (Ed.), Multidimensional data representations: When and why (pp. 325–374). Mathesis Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schönemann, P. H. (1994). Measurement: The reasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in the social sciences. In I. Bork & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Trends and perspectives in empirical social research (pp. 149–160). W. de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Sherry, D. (2011). Thermoscopes, thermometers, and the foundations of measurement. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(4), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sijtsma, K. (2012). Psychological measurement between physics and statistics. Theory & Psychology, 22(6), 786–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354312454353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starr, A., & Srinivasan, M. (2021). The future is in front, to the right, or below: Development of spatial representations of time in three dimensions. Cognition, 210, 104603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S. (1958). Measurement and man. Science, New Series, 127(3295), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.127.3295.383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarski, A. (1954). Contributions to the theory of models. I. Indagationes Mathematicae (Proceedings), 57, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1385-7258(54)50074-0
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, M. (2020). Mathematization, not measurement: A critique of Stevens’ scales of measurement. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 10(2), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.2458/v10i2.23785
   Google Scholar
• Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19(5), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309341926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trendler, G. (2019a). Conjoint measurement undone. Theory & Psychology, 29(1), 100–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318788729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trendler, G. (2019b). Measurability, systematic error, and the replication crisis: A reply to Michell (2019) and Krantz and Wallsten (2019). Theory & Psychology, 29(1), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318824414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uher, J. (2018). Quantitative data from rating scales: an epistemological and methodological enquiry. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2599. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uher, J. (2021a). Problematic research practices in psychology: Misconceptions about data collection entail serious fallacies in data analysis. Theory & Psychology, 31(3), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543211014963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uher, J. (2021b). Psychometrics is not measurement: Unraveling a fundamental misconception in quantitative psychology and the complex network of its underlying fallacies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 41(1), 58–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uher, J. (2022). Functions of units, scales and quantitative data: Fundamental differences in numerical traceability between sciences. Quality & Quantity, 56(4), 2519–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01215-6
   Google Scholar
• Van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Velleman, P. F., & Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are misleading. The American Statistician, 47(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1993.10475938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhelst, N. D. (2019). Exponential family models for continuous responses. In B. P. Veldkamp & C. Sluijter (Eds.), Theoretical and practical advances in computer-based educational measurement (pp. 135–160). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18480-3\_7
   Google Scholar
• von Helmholtz, H. (1887). Zählen und Messen, erkenntnisstheoretisch betrachtet. In F. T. von Vischer (Ed.), Philosophische Aufsätze, Eduard Zeller zu seinem fünfzigjährigen Doctorjubiläum gewidmet (pp. 17–52). Fues’ Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• von Kries, J. (1882). Ueber die Messung intensiver Grössen und über das sogenannte psychophysische Gesetz. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 6, 256–294.
   Google Scholar
• von Liebig, J. (1874). Francis Bacon von Verulam und die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften. In M. Carriere & G. von Liebig (Eds.), Reden und Abhandlungen (pp. 220–254). C. F. Winter’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1919). Geistige Arbeit als Beruf: Vorträge vor dem Freistudentischen Bund; 1. Vortrag: Wissenschaft als Beruf. Duncker & Humblot.
   Google Scholar
• Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1951, December). Mathematical structures and psychological measurements. Psychometrika, 16(4), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288802
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
   Google Scholar
• Willse, J. T. (2018). Ctt: Classical test theory functions ( R package version 2.3.3) [Computer software manual]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CTT
   Google Scholar
• Wood, R. (1978). Fitting the Rasch model—A heady tale. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1978.tb00569.x
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zand Scholten, A., & Borsboom, D. (2009). A reanalysis of Lord’s statistical treatment of football numbers. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar