Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May;17(3):788-804.
doi: 10.1177/17456916211014183. Epub 2021 Nov 30.

Values in Psychometrics

Affiliations

Values in Psychometrics

Lisa D Wijsen et al. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 May.

Abstract

When it originated in the late 19th century, psychometrics was a field with both a scientific and a social mission: Psychometrics provided new methods for research into individual differences and at the same time considered these methods a means of creating a new social order. In contrast, contemporary psychometrics-because of its highly technical nature and its limited involvement in substantive psychological research-has created the impression of being a value-free discipline. In this article, we develop a contrasting characterization of contemporary psychometrics as a value-laden discipline. We expose four such values: that individual differences are quantitative (rather than qualitative), that measurement should be objective in a specific sense, that test items should be fair, and that the utility of a model is more important than its truth. Our goal is not to criticize psychometrics for supporting these values but rather to bring them into the open and to show that they are not inevitable and are in need of systematic evaluation.

Keywords: fair test; objectivity; psychometrics; quantification; utility; validity; value-free ideal; values.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

References

    1. Alexandrova A., Haybron D. M. (2016). Is construct validation valid? Philosophy of Science, 83, 1098–1109.
    1. Anderson E. (2004). Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia, 19, 1–24.
    1. Anomaly J. (2018). Defending eugenics: From cryptic choice to conscious selection. Monash Bioethics Review, 35, 24–35. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Au W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30, 39–62.
    1. Batchelder W. H. (2010). Mathematical psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 759–765. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources