My responses to post-IOMW survey questions

My definition of objective measurement:

Reproducible invariant intervals embodied in instruments calibrated to shared unit standards explained by substantively meaningful theory. The word ‘objective’ is both redundant, like saying ‘wet rain,’ and unnecessarily exclusive of the shared subjectivity embodied in measuring instruments along with objectivity.

Distinguishing features of IOMW:

Clear focus on technical issues of measurement specifically defined in terms of models in form of natural laws, interval units with known uncertainties, data quality assessments, explanatory theory, substantive interpretation, and metrological traceability of instruments distributed to end users throughout a sociocognitive ecosystem.

Future keynote suggestions:

Luca Mari on measurement philosophy

Leslie Pendrill on metrology

Robert Massof on LOVRNet

Stefan Cano on health metrology consensus standards

Jan Morrison on STEM Learning Ecosystems

Angelica Lips Da Cruz on impact investing

Alan Schwartz on how measurement is revolutionizing philanthropy

Future training session topic suggestions:

Traceability control systems

Electronic distributed ledger systems for tracking learning, health, etc over time and across ecosystem niches

How to create information infrastructures capable of coherently integrating discontinuous levels of complexity, CSCW

How to access and put the wealth of available strictly longitudinal repeated measures of student learning growth to work (see Williamson’s 2016 Berkeley IMEKO paper)

How to integrate universally uniform measures of learning, health, etc in economic models, accounting spreadsheets, TQM/CQI quality improvement methods, outcome product pricing models, and investment finance.

How to approach measurement in terms of complex adaptive self organizing stochastic systems

Other comments:

I want to see a clear justification for any references to IRT. The vast majority of references to IRT at the NY meeting were actually references to measurement theory. If IRT is what is said, IRT ought to be what is meant. None of the major measurement theorists include IRT and they specifically disavow it as offering unidentifiable models, model choice based in p-values instead of principles and meaning, difficult if not impossible estimation problems, no proofs of conjoint additivity or of scores as sufficient statistics, and inconsistent assertions of both crossing ICCs and unidimensionality. IRT is not Measurement Theory. Why is it so widely featured at a measurement conference?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: