CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 681Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Arbitrary metrics in psychology

Blanton, Hart, Jaccard, James·2006·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/0003-066x.61.1.27
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many psychological tests have arbitrary metrics but are appropriate for testing psychological theories. Metric arbitrariness is a concern, however, when researchers wish to draw inferences about the true, absolute standing of a group or individual on the latent psychological dimension being measured. The authors illustrate this in the context of 2 case studies in which psychologists need to develop inventories with nonarbitrary metrics. One example comes from social psychology, where researchers have begun using the Implicit Association Test to provide the lay public with feedback about their "hidden biases" via popular Internet Web pages. The other example comes from clinical psychology, where researchers often wish to evaluate the real-world importance of interventions. As the authors show, both pursuits require researchers to conduct formal research that makes their metrics nonarbitrary by linking test scores to meaningful real-world events.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.61.1.27

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ASAT's arbitrary metrics make the measure difficult to use to guide clinical decisions because item and scale scores may not be easily linked to experiences in a patient's everyday life.

    “Specifically, the “arbitrary metrics” (Blanton & Jaccard, 2006) employed make the measure difficult to use to assist in guiding clinical decisions as the item and scale scores may not be easily linked to experiences in a patient’s everyday life”

    From Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) (2013) · cites this paper as Blanton & Jaccard, 2006

  • Discerning whether changes over time at the item and scale levels are clinically meaningful may be difficult for clinicians and researchers with the ASAT.

    “Also, discerning whether changes over time, at the item and scale levels, are clinically meaningful may be difficult for clinicians (and researchers)”

    From Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) (2013) · cites this paper as Blanton & Jaccard, 2006

  • An instrument comprised with at least some non-arbitrary behavioral count items could remedy the ASAT's issues.

    “An instrument comprised with at least some non-arbitrary behavioral count items (Blanton & Jaccard, 2006) could remedy these issues.”

    From Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) (2013) · cites this paper as Blanton & Jaccard, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2006
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
27-41
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/0003-066x.61.1.27
OpenAlex
W2122463050
Cited by
681
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 47
FWCI
61.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
psychological test scores, Implicit Association Test, implicit bias, clinical psychology, social psychology, test score interpretation
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychology, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review