↓ Skip to main content

Psychometrics in action, science as practice

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychometrics in action, science as practice
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10459-017-9789-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob Pearce

Abstract

Practitioners in health sciences education and assessment regularly use a range of psychometric techniques to analyse data, evaluate models, and make crucial progression decisions regarding student learning. However, a recent editorial entitled "Is Psychometrics Science" highlighted some core epistemological and practical problems in psychometrics, and brought its legitimacy into question. This paper attempts to address these issues by applying some key ideas from history and philosophy of science (HPS) discourse. I present some of the conceptual developments in HPS that have bearing on the psychometrics debate. Next, by shifting the focus onto what constitutes the practice of science, I discuss psychometrics in action. Some incorrectly conceptualize science as an assemblage of truths, rather than an assemblage of tools and goals. Psychometrics, however, seems to be an assemblage of methods and techniques. Psychometrics in action represents a range of practices using specific tools in specific contexts. This does not render the practice of psychometrics meaningless or futile. Engaging in debates about whether or not we should regard psychometrics as 'scientific' is, however, a fruitless enterprise. The key question and focus should be whether, on what grounds, and in what contexts, the existing methods and techniques used by psychometricians can be justified or criticized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Other 3 11%
Lecturer 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2021.
All research outputs
#12,704,903
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#458
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,993
of 316,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.