A Why Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores?

Ad VanderVen
Messages
169
Reaction score
13
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top