Metaphors and the psychometric paradigm

References

• Baird, J., Isaacs, T., Opposs, D., & Gray, L. (Eds.). (2018). Examination standards: How measures and meanings differ around the world. London: UCL IOE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, J.-A., & Opposs, D. (2018). The standard setting project: Assessment paradigms. In J.-A. Baird, T. Isaacs, D. Opposs, & L. Gray (Eds.), Examination standards: How measures and meanings differ around the world (pp. 2–25). London: UCL Institute of Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2008). Latent variable theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6(1 & 2), 25–53.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2004). Why psychometrics is not pathological: A comment on Michell. Theory & Psychology, 14(1), 105–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramley, T. (2013, August 27–31). Maintaining standards in public examinations: Why it is impossible to please everyone. Paper presented at the 15th biennial conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/167347-maintaining-standards-in-public-examinations-why-it-is-impossible-to-please-everyone.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bramley, T. (2017). Handbook of test development – Review of Section 2. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(4), 519–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramley, T. (2020). Comparing small-sample equating with Angoff judgement for linking cut-scores on two tests. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment Publication, 29, 23–27.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. (2017). Are you ‘overfat’? Here are the best ways to tell. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/are-you-overfat-here-are-the-best-ways-to-tell-81508
   Google Scholar
• Choi, S. E. (1997). Rasch invents “ounces”. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(2), 557. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt112a.htm
   Google Scholar
• Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reconsidering Standards and Criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 93–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cizek, G. J. (2012). An introduction to contemporary standard setting. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Foundations, methods and innovations (2nd ed., pp. 3–14). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell, M. (2003). Heaps, prototypes and ethics: The consequences of using judgements of student performance to set examination standards in a time of change. London: Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Dooremalen, H., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Metaphors in psychological conceptualization and explanation. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 121–144). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 106–132). Harvester Press. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a096679.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Jeziorski, M. (1993). The shift from metaphor to analogy in western science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 447–480). UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glass, G. V. (1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15(4), 237–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, P. M. S. (2007). Human nature: The categorial framework. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Haig, B. D. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis, theory generation, and scientific method. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(3), 303–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, J. M. (2000). The hunt for the correct quotation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 14(1), 739. Retrieved from https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt141k.htm
   Google Scholar
• Maraun, M. (2003). Myths and confusions: Psychometrics and the latent variable model. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/~maraun/myths-and-confusions.html
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maraun, M. D., & Halpin, P. F. (2008). Manifest and latent variates. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6(1–2), 113–117.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, J. C. (1977). Minds, machines and metaphors. Social Studies of Science, 7(4), 475–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 335–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory & Psychology, 10(5), 639–667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008a). Is psychometrics pathological science? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6(1 & 2), 7–24.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008b). Rejoinder. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6(1 & 2), 125–133.
   Google Scholar
• Michell, J. (2008c). Conjoint measurement and the Rasch paradox. A response to Kyngdon. Theory & Psychology, 18(1), 119–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59(4), 439–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mislevy, R. J. (2008). How cognitive science challenges the educational measurement tradition. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 6(1–2), 124.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, P., Twing, J., Muella, C. D., & O’Malley, K. (2010). Standard-setting methods as measurement processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 14–24.
   Google Scholar
• Nuttall, F. Q. (2015). Body mass index: obesity, BMI, and health: A critical review. Nutrition Today, 50(3), 117–128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pelton, T. W., & Bunderson, C. V. (2003). The recovery of the density scale using a stochastic quasi-realisation of additive conjoint measurement. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(3), 269–281.
   PubMedGoogle 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, 58–94.
   Google Scholar
• Stenner, A., Fisher, W., Stone, M., & Burdick, D. (2013). Causal Rasch models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(536). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00536
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephanou, A., & Fisher, W. P. J. (2013). From concrete to abstract in the measurement of length. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 459(1), 012026. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/459/1/012026/meta
   Google Scholar
• Thorndike, E. L. (1918). The nature, purposes, and general methods of measurements of educational products. Chapter II. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The seventeenth yearbook of the national society for study of education. Part II. The measurement of educational products. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Van Deemter, K. (2010). Not exactly: In praise of vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zwick, R. (1992). Statistical and psychometric issues in the measurement of educational achievement trends: Examples from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17(2), 205–218.
   Google Scholar