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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: