208
However, method B (middle column of Table 7.2) is not uniquely characterized,
being analogous to a direct method with respect to the first criterion and to an indirect method with respect to the second criterion. Since we are interested here in lexical issues, we call this method “direct/indirect”:
a measurement is based on a direct/indirect method (as in the middle column of Table 7.2)
when(i) an instrument is used that is coupled with the object carrying the measurand and is
designed to interact with instances of the general property of the measurand, and(ii) the
model of the measurand is used in measurement for identifying the measurand and its
dependence on affecting properties, from which the measurement result can be computed
This mixed case highlights the complexity of our subject, and perhaps explains
some of the confusion around the distinction between direct and indirect methods of
measurement. Furthermore, the claims that any measurement is based on either a
direct or an indirect method, in the sense proposed here, and that any indirect measurement requires at least one direct measurement, contribute to the clarification of
the strategic issue of whether measurement science is becoming a branch of data
science: the answer is negative. Even though the computational components are
becoming more and more important, measurement maintains its distinction from
computation by virtue of involving empirical components: any direct measurement
includes at least one empirical component, and any measurement includes at least
one direct measurement.
Hence, the framework we are going to propose needs to embed a structural model
of direct measurement and to be based on it.
7.3 A structural model of direct measurement
We are basing our account on the model proposed by Giordani and Mari (2019),
which shares important features with the Berkeley Assessment System (BAS)
model (Wilson, 2005; Wilson & Sloane, 2000), and evidence-centered design (ECD:
Mislevy, Steinberg, & Almond, 2003). We initially use the same example as in
Giordani and Mari to help make the description of the structural model clearer and
more concrete. The aim of this section is to supply a structural model for the fulfillment of the Basic Evaluation Equation for a generic property, in the case that in the
previous section we have characterized as direct measurement.
In reference to what we have presented in Sect. 2.3, our starting point is the consideration that measurement is a process that maps empirical entities to informational entities, i.e., properties of objects to values, and this highlights the fundamental
role that scales have in measurement (and more generally evaluation) processes.
What could be called a Basic Evaluation Scale
10
is then a set of mappings
10 The adjective “basic” refers to the simplification of not taking uncertainty into account in scale
construction.
7 Modeling measurement and its quality
However, method B (middle column of Table 7.2) is not uniquely characterized,
being analogous to a direct method with respect to the first criterion and to an indirect method with respect to the second criterion. Since we are interested here in lexical issues, we call this method “direct/indirect”:
a measurement is based on a direct/indirect method (as in the middle column of Table 7.2)
when(i) an instrument is used that is coupled with the object carrying the measurand and is
designed to interact with instances of the general property of the measurand, and(ii) the
model of the measurand is used in measurement for identifying the measurand and its
dependence on affecting properties, from which the measurement result can be computed
This mixed case highlights the complexity of our subject, and perhaps explains
some of the confusion around the distinction between direct and indirect methods of
measurement. Furthermore, the claims that any measurement is based on either a
direct or an indirect method, in the sense proposed here, and that any indirect measurement requires at least one direct measurement, contribute to the clarification of
the strategic issue of whether measurement science is becoming a branch of data
science: the answer is negative. Even though the computational components are
becoming more and more important, measurement maintains its distinction from
computation by virtue of involving empirical components: any direct measurement
includes at least one empirical component, and any measurement includes at least
one direct measurement.
Hence, the framework we are going to propose needs to embed a structural model
of direct measurement and to be based on it.
7.3 A structural model of direct measurement
We are basing our account on the model proposed by Giordani and Mari (2019),
which shares important features with the Berkeley Assessment System (BAS)
model (Wilson, 2005; Wilson & Sloane, 2000), and evidence-centered design (ECD:
Mislevy, Steinberg, & Almond, 2003). We initially use the same example as in
Giordani and Mari to help make the description of the structural model clearer and
more concrete. The aim of this section is to supply a structural model for the fulfillment of the Basic Evaluation Equation for a generic property, in the case that in the
previous section we have characterized as direct measurement.
In reference to what we have presented in Sect. 2.3, our starting point is the consideration that measurement is a process that maps empirical entities to informational entities, i.e., properties of objects to values, and this highlights the fundamental
role that scales have in measurement (and more generally evaluation) processes.
What could be called a Basic Evaluation Scale
10
is then a set of mappings
10 The adjective “basic” refers to the simplification of not taking uncertainty into account in scale
construction.
7 Modeling measurement and its quality