In this commentary on Pfadt et al. (2026, Psychometrika , 1–35), I first make the case for implementing psychometric methods, such as the conditional standard error of measurement (CSEM), in software that is user-friendly from a practitioner’s perspective. Furthermore, I argue that bias and variance in CSEM estimates are still poorly understood and I report a small simulation study comparing the coverage rates of the CSEM estimate recommended by Pfadt et al. with those of the estimated (unconditional) standard error of measurement. The results point to possible directions for future research on CSEM estimation.
