Separating models, ideas, and data to avoid a paradox: Rejoinder to Humphry

K. Sijtsma, W.H.M. Emons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This article is a rejoinder to Humphry’s (2013) comment on Sijtsma (2012). Sijtsma argued that the Rasch paradox does not exist but Humphry replies that the Rasch paradox can occur provided the measurement procedure is precise enough. The rejoinder argues that the debates about the Rasch paradox mingle properties of formal psychometric models, ideas about what people do when they respond to the items in a test, and the kind of data they produce. The three levels of formal models, ideas about response processes, and real data should be distinguished in order to prevent confusion. Then the conclusion remains that the Rasch paradox does not exist.
Keywords: debate on psychological measurement, Rasch paradox, theory as precursor for measurement
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)786-796
JournalTheory & Psychology
Volume23
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

Cite this