xi
consequences) and assumptions for which the strength of support and alternative
explanations should be determined.
Serious inquiries into the nature of measurement in psychosocial sciences drew
on the substantial foundations established in the physical sciences up to that point,
but even so a wide range of views resulted, as seen for example in varied writings of
S.S. Stevens, Leon Thurstone, Edward Thorndike, Georg Rasch, Duncan Luce and
John Tukey, and Joel Michell. At one pole is that measurement in psychosocial science needs to meet the same axioms as in physical science, producing for individuals’ values that correspond to properties of that which is being measured (e.g., a
person’s RCA), such that the mathematical properties of the values as numbers
correspond to demonstrated regularities, within and across individuals, in the realworld interactions they effect (note: “effect” is a stronger word than “affect”). At the
other pole is Stevens’s pithy definition of measurement as the assignment of numerals to objects and events according to a rule. The task was then to determine just
what kind of measurement it might be, in accordance with nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio properties of numbers. The question of whether a property in question
existed was tacitly assumed in the affirmative, often its quantitative nature as well.
Between these extremes lie the so-called latent variable measurement models I
mentioned earlier. Unsound inferences result when weaker definitions are employed
to justify numbers as measurements, but stronger definitions are employed, if tacitly, to justify interpreting them and using them.
Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
(Those who know no foreign language know nothing of their own.)
Herein lies the genius of this book. Luca, Mark, and Andy step back from the
particulars of length, temperature, and increasingly esoteric measures of physical
sciences and purported measures such as corruption, quality of life, and RCA in
psychosocial domains. They carefully develop a set of necessary conditions and a
set of sufficient conditions they propose to characterize what one might call proper
measurement. They draw on both the successes and earned authority of physical
measurement and the points of debate for various ways of extending the notion to
psychosocial realms. The concepts and conditions clarify the latter debate and offer
a resolution I consider satisfying if not definitive. More interestingly, they offer new
insights into the foundations of physical measurement; points of contention in the
psychosocial extension bring out distinctions and assumptions that are elided in the
development of measurement in the physical sciences and recorded in standards
documents such as the International Vocabulary of Metrology.
2
A compact statement of necessary (but not sufficient) conditions that this book
advances is that “Measurement can be considered, preliminarily and in a general
sense, to be a process based on empirical interaction with an object and aimed at
2 Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (2012). JCGM 200:2012, International Vocabulary of
Metrology: Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM). Sevres: www.bipm.org/en/
publications/guides/vim.html.
Foreword
consequences) and assumptions for which the strength of support and alternative
explanations should be determined.
Serious inquiries into the nature of measurement in psychosocial sciences drew
on the substantial foundations established in the physical sciences up to that point,
but even so a wide range of views resulted, as seen for example in varied writings of
S.S. Stevens, Leon Thurstone, Edward Thorndike, Georg Rasch, Duncan Luce and
John Tukey, and Joel Michell. At one pole is that measurement in psychosocial science needs to meet the same axioms as in physical science, producing for individuals’ values that correspond to properties of that which is being measured (e.g., a
person’s RCA), such that the mathematical properties of the values as numbers
correspond to demonstrated regularities, within and across individuals, in the realworld interactions they effect (note: “effect” is a stronger word than “affect”). At the
other pole is Stevens’s pithy definition of measurement as the assignment of numerals to objects and events according to a rule. The task was then to determine just
what kind of measurement it might be, in accordance with nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio properties of numbers. The question of whether a property in question
existed was tacitly assumed in the affirmative, often its quantitative nature as well.
Between these extremes lie the so-called latent variable measurement models I
mentioned earlier. Unsound inferences result when weaker definitions are employed
to justify numbers as measurements, but stronger definitions are employed, if tacitly, to justify interpreting them and using them.
Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
(Those who know no foreign language know nothing of their own.)
Herein lies the genius of this book. Luca, Mark, and Andy step back from the
particulars of length, temperature, and increasingly esoteric measures of physical
sciences and purported measures such as corruption, quality of life, and RCA in
psychosocial domains. They carefully develop a set of necessary conditions and a
set of sufficient conditions they propose to characterize what one might call proper
measurement. They draw on both the successes and earned authority of physical
measurement and the points of debate for various ways of extending the notion to
psychosocial realms. The concepts and conditions clarify the latter debate and offer
a resolution I consider satisfying if not definitive. More interestingly, they offer new
insights into the foundations of physical measurement; points of contention in the
psychosocial extension bring out distinctions and assumptions that are elided in the
development of measurement in the physical sciences and recorded in standards
documents such as the International Vocabulary of Metrology.
2
A compact statement of necessary (but not sufficient) conditions that this book
advances is that “Measurement can be considered, preliminarily and in a general
sense, to be a process based on empirical interaction with an object and aimed at
2 Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (2012). JCGM 200:2012, International Vocabulary of
Metrology: Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM). Sevres: www.bipm.org/en/
publications/guides/vim.html.
Foreword