Cited by 1,566Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and AssessmentEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

The theoretical status of latent variables.

Borsboom, Denny, Mellenbergh, Gideon J., van Heerden, Jaap·2003·Psychological Review

Abstract

This article examines the theoretical status of latent variables as used in modern test theory models. First, it is argued that a consistent interpretation of such models requires a realist ontology for latent variables. Second, the relation between latent variables and their indicators is discussed. It is maintained that this relation can be interpreted as a causal one but that in measurement models for interindividual differences the relation does not apply to the level of the individual person. To substantiate intraindividual causal conclusions, one must explicitly represent individual level processes in the measurement model. Several research strategies that may be useful in this respect are discussed, and a typology of constructs is proposed on the basis of this analysis. The need to link individual processes to latent variable models for interindividual differences is emphasized.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.203

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 measurements and clusters of tests in standard factor-analytic construct definition are selected on intuitive or a priori grounds, not on the basis of predictive validity in terms of real-world outcomes.

    “The measurements and clusters of tests are selected on intuitive grounds or a priori grounds, and not on the basis of any predictive validity in terms of real-world outcomes (for example, success in college, performance on the job, earnings).”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Borsboom, Mellenbergh and van Heerden [2003]

  • Boorsboom and colleagues have argued that between-person theories do not imply, test, or support causal accounts valid at the individual level.

    “Boorsboom and colleagues have argued that between-person theories do not imply, test, or support causal accounts valid at the individual level [87].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2003-04
Volume
110
Issue
2
Pages
203-219
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2122621931
Cited by
1,566
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 182 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 151 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 87 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 76
FWCI
35.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
latent variables, latent variable models, test theory, realism, ontology, measurement model, indicators, causal interpretation, individual differences
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychological Theory, Psychology, Semantics

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