Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:34:43.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statistics as Psychometrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Melvin R. Novick
Melvin R. Novick*
Affiliation:
The University of Iowa
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Melvin R. Novick, Lindquist Center for Measurement, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, modern statistics is considered as a branch of psychometrics and the question of how the central problems of statistics can be resolved using psychometric methods is investigated. Theories and methods developed in the fields of test theory, scaling, and factor analysis are related to the principle problems of modern statistical theory and method. Topics surveyed include assessment of probabilities, assessment of utilities, assessment of exchangeability, preposterior analysis, adversary analysis, multiple comparisons, the selection of predictor variables, and full-rank ANOVA. Reference is made to some literature from the field of cognitive psychology to indicate some of the difficulties encountered in probability and utility assessment. Some methods for resolving these difficulties using the Computer-Assisted Data Analysis (CADA) Monitor are described, as is some recent experimental work on utility assessment.

Keywords

Bayesian decision theoryutility theorycomputer assisted data analysis

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 1980, pp. 411 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1980 Psychometric Society presidential address.

I am indebted to Paul Slovie and David Libby for valuable consultation on the issues discussed in this paper and to Nancy Turner and Laura Novick for assistance in preparation.

Research reported herein was supported under contract number N000t4-77-C-0428 from the Office of Naval Research to The University of Iowa, Melvin R. Novick, principal investigator. Opinions expressed herein reflect those of the author and not those of sponsoring agencies.

References

Reference Notes

Card, W. I., Rusinkiewicz, M., & Phillips, C. I. Estimation of the utilities of states of health with different visual acuities using a wagering technique, 1975, Dijon, France: IF/P TC4 Working Conference on Decision Making and Medical Care.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation (Tech. Rep. PTR-1042-77-8), 1977.10.21236/ADA057163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R., Turner, N. J., & Novick, L. R. Experimental studies of CADA-based utility assessment procedures (ONR Tech. Rep. No. 2). August, 1980.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculations—and some evidence—about man's ability to process information. Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 1972, 12 (2).Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice (ONR Tech. Rep. No. 2). March 1980.Google Scholar

References

Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H. & Marschak, J. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 1964, 9, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolker, E. D. A simultaneous axiomatization of utility and subjective probability. Philosophy of Science, 1967, 34, 333–340.10.1086/288171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. Portfolio theory and the measurement of risk. In Kaplan, M. F. & Schwartz, S. (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, Inc.. 1975, 63–85.10.1016/B978-0-12-397250-7.50009-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 180–188.10.1037/h0030868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. Predictive models as a guide to preference. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1977, SMC-7, 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFinetti, B. Theory of Probability, 1974, London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In Wallsten, T. (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, in press.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. A mixture-set axiomatization of conditional subjective expected utility. Econometrica, 1973, 41, 1–25.10.2307/1913879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. Decisions and value theory, 1964, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. Independence in utility theory with whole product sets. Operations Research, 1965, 13.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. Utility theory for decision making, 1970, New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.21236/AD0708563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. & Savage, L. J. The utility analysis of choice involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 1948, 56, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herstein, I. N. & Milnor, J. An axiomatic approach to measurable utility. Econometrica, 1953, 21, 291–297.10.2307/1905540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1975, 70, 271–289.10.1080/01621459.1975.10479858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, J., Moore, P. G. & Thomas, H. Utility and its measurement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 1973, 136, 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. H., Novick, M. R. & DeKeyrel, D. F. Adversary preposterior analysis for simple parametric models. In Zellner, A. (Eds.), Bayesian analysis in econometrics and statistics—Essays in honor of Harold Jeffreys. Studies in Bayesian econometric, 1980, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. New foundations for Bayesian decision theory. In Bar-Hillel, Y. (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.. 1965, 289–300.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3, 430–454.10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47, 263–291.10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, D. & Raiffa, H. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, 1976, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Keeney, R. L. Utility functions for multiattributed consequences. Management Science, 1972, 18, 276–287.10.1287/mnsc.18.5.276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L. Utility independence and preference for multiattributed consequences. Operations Research, 1971, 19, 875–893.10.1287/opre.19.4.875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D. & Suppes, P., Tversky, A. Foundations of measurement. Volume 1: Additive and polynomial representations, 1971, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindley, D. V. A class of utility functions. Annals of Statistics, 1976, 4, 1–10.10.1214/aos/1176343343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, D. V. & Smith, A. F. M. Bayes estimates for the linear model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1972, 34, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, D. V., Tversky, A. & Brown. On the reconciliation of probability assessments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1979,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis, 1959, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. & Krantz, D. H. Conditional expected utility. Econometrica, 1971, 39, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, F. & Nogee, P. An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 1951, 59, 371–404.10.1086/257106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. Theory of games and economic behavior, 1944, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R. A Bayesian approach to the selection of predictor variables. In Lunneborg, C. E. (Eds.), Current problems and techniques in multivariate psychology, 1970, Seattle, Washington: The University of Washington.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R., Chuang, D. & DeKeyrel, D. Local and regional coherence utility assessment procedures. Trabajos de Estadistica, in press.Google Scholar
Novick, Melvin R., Hamer, Robert M., Libby, David D., Chen, James J. & Woodworth, George G. Manual for the Computer-Assisted Data Analyais (CADA) Monitor (1980), 1980, Iowa City, Iowa: The University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R., Jackson, P. H. & Thayer, D. T. Bayesian inference and the classical test theory model: Reliability and true scores. Psychometrika, 1971, 36, 261–288.10.1007/BF02297848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R. & Lindley, D. V. Fixed-state assessment of utility functions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1979, 24, 306–311.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R. & Lindley, D. V. The use of more realistic utility functions in educational applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 181–192.10.1111/j.1745-3984.1978.tb00067.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. W. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrika, 1964, 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. W., Raiffa, H. & Schlaifer, R.. In Prelim, (Eds.), Introduction to statistical decision theory, 1965, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schlaifer, R. Analysis of decisions under uncertainty, 1969, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schlaifer, R. Computer programs for elementary decision analysis, 1971, Boston: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. & Fischoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1977, 28, 1–39.10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. C. & Edwards, W. Boredom induced changes in preferences among bets. American Journal of Psychology, 1965, 79, 427–434.10.2307/1420883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spetzler, C. S., von Staël, Holstein & von Holstein, C-A. S. Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science, 1975, 22, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swalm, R. O. Utility theory—insights into risk taking. Harvard Business Review, 1966, 44, 123–136.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, 1958, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
Tversky, A. Additivity, utility, and subjective probability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, 4, 175–201.10.1016/0022-2496(67)90049-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. Choice by elimination. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1972, 9, 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 1972, 29, 281–299.10.1037/h0032955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. On the elicitation of preferences: Descriptive and prescriptive considerations. In Bell, D. E., Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H. (Eds.), Conflicting objectives in decisions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 1977, 209–222.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974, 185, 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodworth, George G. Numerical evaluation of preposterior expectations in the two-parameter normal model, with an application to preposterior consenses analysis. In Zellner, A. (Eds.), Bayesian analysis in econometrics and statistics, 1980, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Woodworth, George G. t for two, or preposterior analysis for two decision makers: Interval estimates for the mean. American Statistican, November, 1976.10.2307/2683754CrossRefGoogle Scholar