The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Problem of Units and the Circumstance for POMP
Abstract
Many areas of the behavioral sciences have few measures that are accepted as the standard for the operationalization of a construct. One consequence is that there is hardly ever an articulated and understood framework for the units of the measures that are employed. Without meaningful measurement units, theoretical formulations are limited to statements of the direction of an effect or association, or to effects expressed in standardized units. Thus the long term scientific goal of generation of laws expressing the relationships among variables in scale units is greatly hindered. This article reviews alternative methods of scoring a scale. Two recent journal volumes are surveyed with regard to current scoring practices. Alternative methods of scoring are evaluated against seven articulated criteria representing the information conveyed by each in an illustrative example. Converting scores to the percent of maximum possible score (POMP) is shown to provide useful additional information in many cases.
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Self-citationThe statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Cohen, J. (1962) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045186 · Cited by 1,824
Self-citationHambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985) · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1988-9 · Cited by 1,777
Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment.
Anderson, N. H. (1970) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0029064 · Cited by 576
Cited by
Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919847202 · Cited by 3,295
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0035661 · Cited by 1,981
Use of the Extreme Groups Approach: A Critical Reexamination and New Recommendations.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W. A. (2005) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.10.2.178 · Cited by 732
Standardized or simple effect size: what should be reported?
Baguley, T. (2009) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712608x377117 · Cited by 619
Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003 · Cited by 544
Metadata
- Authors
- Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G.
- Venue
- Multivariate Behavioral Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 315-346
- ISSN
- 0027-3171 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7906
- OpenAlex
- W2002132341
- Cited by
- 900
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.35
- 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
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.