Theory & Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Michell, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Theory & Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 119-124 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354307086926

Conjoint Measurement and the Rasch Paradox

A Response to Kyngdon

Joel Michell

UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, joelm{at}psych.usyd.edu.au

Unlike Andrew Kyngdon, I think the issue he has addressed is most informatively considered outside the confines of the representational theory of measurement. Then it becomes clear that while the theory of conjoint measurement is about situations like that treated by the Rasch model, the former isolates a different feature of those situations to the latter. But, if the relevant attributes are already presumed to be quantitative, the perceived differences are minimized and the Rasch model might seem to be a version of conjoint measurement. It is on this basis that Rasch modellers pursue their paradoxical quest for measurement. However, because the relevant attributes are not actually known to be quantitative, use of the Rasch model to measure psychological attributes remains logically dependent upon the outcome of research involving the theory of conjoint measurement or something very similar.

Key Words: conjoint measurement • psychometrics • Rasch model • representational theory


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
A. Kyngdon
Conjoint Measurement, Error and the Rasch Model: A Reply to Michell, and Borsboom and Zand Scholten
Theory Psychology, February 1, 2008; 18(1): 125 - 131.
[Abstract] [PDF]