Graduate Why Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the 1968 book "Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores" by Lord and Novick, questioning the significance of the term "statistical" in the title. This raises the possibility that the theories presented may not be psychological but rather mathematical in nature, similar to Newton's work in physics. The lack of clarity regarding the authors' intentions behind the title leads to speculation about whether these theories serve as a precursor to psychological theories. A participant notes that the book is rich in statistics and statistical techniques, yet the authors do not explicitly explain their choice of the adjective "statistical." Overall, the importance and implications of the research remain ambiguous.
Ad VanderVen
Messages
169
Reaction score
13
TL;DR
In 1968, Lord and Novick published a book called Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. I wonder why they used the adjective 'statistical'. Does this suggest that the theories mentioned are not psychological theories and, if so, what could be the meaning of such theories?
In 1968, Lord and Novick published a book called Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. I wonder why they used the adjective 'statistical'. Does this suggest that the theories mentioned are not psychological theories and, if so, what could be the meaning of such theories? Should these theories be regarded as a stepping stone to psychological theories? It almost resembles Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Loosely translated, his book could also have been called A Mathematical Theory of Physical Measurements, which would suggest that the theory proposed is not physical, but purely mathematical. Which would also be somewhat true, because Newton had no idea what gravity actually was. He also didn't know why his so-called three laws of nature worked. Yet no one doubts the importance of his research. In the case of the book Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, the importance of that research seems less clear.

Literature

Lord, F. M., and Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Addison Wesley.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you read the book? Did the authors discuss their choice of title in the book? If not, then it will be next to impossible for anyone else to divine what they intended by their word choice.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
Yes, I've read most of the book and have since developed my own statistical theory for response times to simple mental tasks. I didn't think Lord and Novick mentioned anywhere in the book why they used the adjective 'statistical'.
 
If the authors didn't say, then anyone would just be guessing, and I think you probably have a better basis on which to guess than anyone else here would. You should just go with your impression.
 
I took a quick look. It's filled with statistcs and statistical techniques.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K