The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The new rules of measurement.
Abstract
Classical test theory, which the authors maintain applied psychologists are still too often exclusively taught, are contrasted with the new rules of measurement. In the newer, model-based version of test theory, called item response theory (IRT), some well-known rules of measurement o longer apply. Six old rules of measurement that conflict with the new rules are reviewed, and intuitive xplanations of the new rules are provided. Readers are also directed to additional informational sources about IRT, which, it is argued, every psychologist hould be familiar with. In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied psychology. Although both the context of application and the legal guidelines for using tests have changed, psychological tests themselves have been relatively stable. Many historically valued tests, in somewhat revised forms, remain in active current use. Further, although several new tests have de-veloped in response to contemporary needs in applied psychol-ogy, the principles underlying test development have remained constant. Or have they?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests
(1961) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(61)80061-2 · Cited by 6,939
"General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412107 · Cited by 6,207
A Rasch model for partial credit scoring
Masters, G. N. (1982) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296272 · Cited by 3,782
Fundamentals of item response theory
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-4185 · Cited by 3,414
Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory
(1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6 · Cited by 2,305
Gulliksen, H. (1950) · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1037/13240-000 · Cited by 2,177
Andrich, D. (1988) · doi:10.4135/9781412985598 · Cited by 1,345
Rasch Models in Latent Classes: An Integration of Two Approaches to Item Analysis
Rost, J. (1990) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662169001400305 · Cited by 552
Lord, F. M. (1952) · Cited by 494
(1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4230-7 · Cited by 359
Cited by
Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171 · Cited by 1,535
Item Response Theory and Health Outcomes Measurement in the 21st Century
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200009002-00007 · Cited by 869
Rutter, M., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00194 · Cited by 672
McArdle, J. J., Ferrer-Caja, E., Hamagami, F., & Woodcock, R. W. (2002) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.115 · Cited by 544
Greco, L. A., Lambert, W., & Baer, R. A. (2008) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.93 · Cited by 514
Metadata
- Authors
- Embretson, S. E.
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 341-349
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2083879993
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 10.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The new rules of measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341
- The paper
- Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.