The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Psychometrics Is Datametrics: The Test Is Not Reliable
Abstract
The present article responds to selected criticisms of some EPM editorial policies and Vacha-Haase’s “reliability generalization” meta-analytic methods. However, the treatment is more broadly a manifesto regarding the nature of score reliability and what are reasonable expectations for psychometric reporting practices in substantive inquiries. The consequences of misunderstandings of score reliability are explored. It is suggested that paradigmatic misconceptions regarding psychometric issues feed into a spiral of presumptions that measurement training is unnecessary for doctoral students, which then in turn further reinforces misunderstandings of score integrity issues.
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
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
Cited by
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.105.3.997-1014 · Cited by 555
Meta-analysis of Cohen’s kappa
Sun, S. (2011) · Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology · doi:10.1007/s10742-011-0077-3 · Cited by 282
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014331 · Cited by 231
“To include ICC and r into one single analysis, we followed Thompson and Vacha-Haase [84] and used the square root of the ICC as a kind of correlation coefficient.”
MethodReliability Generalization of Working Alliance Inventory Scale Scores
Hanson, W. E., Curry, K. T., & Bandalos, D. L. (2002) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164402062004008 · Cited by 161
Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4 · Cited by 118
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-04-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 174-195
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 0000-0000
- OpenAlex
- W2086750128
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 42.15
- 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: Psychometrics Is Datametrics: The Test Is Not Reliable. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00131640021970448
- The paper
- Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2000). Psychometrics Is Datametrics: The Test Is Not Reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970448
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.
