User talk:Holon - Knowledge (XXG)

319:'Quantity is among the basic classes of things along with quality, substance, change, and relation. Initially, quantity was introduced as quantum, an entity having quantity. Generally, quantity is viewed as the basic property of things existing as magnitudes or multitudes, or the state of being much. Being a fundamental term, quantity is used to refer to any type of quantitative properties or attributes of things. Of entities which pertain to quantities, some are such by their inner nature (as number), while others are functioning as states (properties, dimensions, attributes) and modifications like as heavy and light, long and short, broad and narrow, small and great, or much and little. Two basic differences of quantity, magnitude and multitude (or number), imply the principal distinction between continuity (continuum) and discontinuity. Under the names of multitude come what is discontinuous and discrete and divisible into indivisibles, all cases of collective nouns: army, fleet, flock, government, company, party, people, chorus, crowd, mess, and number. Under the names of magnitude come what is continuous and unified and divisible into divisibles, all cases of common names or mass nouns: the universe, matter, mass, energy, liquid, material, animal, plant, tree.' 1941:

that makes a factor analysis approach chaotic and the approach I've used for getting a reliability is hard to understand. The latter is an approach I got from the test-creators. So, why do I put this here? Since you do psychometrics, maybe you know something about this issue that you can help me with. That is, point me in the direction of relevant literature or search terms etc. I'm looking for articles that describe how you can do a factor analysis even when you work with weighted items. that is, during the scoring of the test, all items gets an extra weight multiplied to their rawscore based on their overall importance decided by the scorer when he scores. So, items that are highly scores, increases, while low scored items are not that much improved. This weighting is hard to account for in a factor analysis. Do you know of any theory that discussesd weighted items, group dependent items, item dependen groups, item dependency etc? Because this is a real challenge for me... I know the information I have given you is sketchy, but maybe you know literature that touches the area...

1884:

triple point of water. My thesis is that units of psychological measurement must also be specified in terms of empirical conditions and other relevant quantitative attributes. I summarise in the conclusion of my thesis, linking to observations by Joel Michell. I believe this goes to the heart of Luce’s (1993, p. 127) stated goal “to prove qualitative theories underlying quantitative models that relate several variables”. In physics, units are only meaningfully defined in terms which relate more than one kind of quantity. On your question about scale – it depends on your definition of scale. I define scale as a continuum partitioned into units of fixed magnitude of the relevant quantitative attribute, phenomenon, or relation. That is, a scale is defined in terms of continuity and a unit. I’m not referring to JNDs, no, though this is a related matter in the way I have approached the study of the unit.

250:

other nonsense that slip through the system drag it down. That comment is a generalisation and is not aimed at you or any other particular contributor. I agree life is busy, and that some people may intend to come back later to make appropriate changes to sentences/paragraphs that need work. However, in the meantime, someone visits us, reads an untweaked entry, and wonders about the quality of Wiki. Incidentally, I don't claim to be perfect. My original contributions have been edited by others and I welcome constructive changes. I have edited ambiguous articles to say something that the original poster never intended, and got a rocket for doing so. But, the good part of it is that the articles end up being a lot less ambiguous than when originally posted. Cheers

1737:

to express my awareness of the psychometric literature especially as it relates to error in measurement and because you seem to put much stock in Michell's views, I attempted to show that his view of the main discussion are not in any contradiction to the points I've made. In this context, I will close by pointing out that whether one assumes error is a nuisance or in need of being modelled is not a discussion that has an end at this junction. Some axiomatic models have been formulated in a stochastic mannter (e.g. Falmagne for testing double cancellation) but neither can rest on measurement foundations that differ, nor can that foundation differ from any other science.

1176:). The issues that separate axiomatic measurement approaches and, say, psychometrics are not lost on me, nor are Michell's issues either. I can't think of a better way to cast the problems of this than by the following "The failure of measurement to "take" in cognition and psychometrics is related to a deep conceptual question concering the relationship between statistics, as away of describing randomness, and measurement, as a way of describing structure. The lack of an adequate theory for this relationship is, in reality, a weakness of both fields." (Luce & Narens, 1993) ( 1981:

reasonably coarse classification is all that is needed. Perhaps, when you have time, you could summarise any contentious issues. I'll try to read through the discussion though. To allow the clearest possible classifications, scaling examples with a series of comparisons of pairs of articles would really help, as I said. Whether this is worthwhile depends on the purpose and the 'stakes'. But yeah, not a problem even if you just want to think through whether it is already good, or whether a little tweaking would help. Feel free to email me using the wiki function. Cheers --

1675:

arbitrarily define error bounds such that the results fall outside of them. I could do the very same thing with any theory and show that it was futile to even measure the length of a table or kilo of sugar. You must means something I'm not getting. As to the question of "unit of psychological measurement" I really don't know what you mean. What is the unit of physical measurement? How is that answerable in absence of a scale? Or are you talking about some Fechnerian ideas such as JND's? I'm quite mystified by what you are saying here, but would like to understand.

1900:

to carefully measure how much mass the ship can take and then to also measure the coal. The scientist has the men load a large quantity of stone onto the ship. He has people judge many different quantities of stone against each other, and finds that is data meet the requirements of measurement. He then has someone travel and conduct similar experiments with the coal, and again he finds he can measure the coal. He reports back, saying that the measure of stone the ship can hold is 233, saying "we have also been able to measure the coal".

190:

viewpoint from some contributors. I wanted to get this started, and I'll come back and clean it up myself. I try not to begin articles in too rough a form, but life's busy! I welcome the edits, but when I saw that paragraphs had been removed without a stated reason, and that a factually incorrect sentence had been introduced (inadvertently no doubt) I thought it better to revert. Anyhow, if you can, let me know which sentences you think need work, otherwise I'm sure I can figure that out and make appropriate changes later. Take care

1110:, where I have outlined some of the background to Stevens definition of measurement. Michell shows in detail why it is defective, both from a representational point of view and a classical point of view (the latter being simply the definition of measurement in physics). Yes, psychophysical measurement is concerned with measuring sensation -- but you still must demonstrate that you meet criteria for measurement, unless you adopt Stevens' definition. 694:"Without assuming veridical interpretation of numbers, Narens (1996) formulated another property that, if sustained, meant that respondents could make ratio scaled judgments, namely, if y is judged p times x, z is judged q times y, and if y' is judged q times x, z' is judged p times y', then z should equal z'. This property has been sustained in a variety of situations (Ellermeier & Faulhammer, 2000; Zimmer, 2005)." 1050:(which is not the case). Your second point: there is a subtle but fundamental point to be made here: measurement with numbers is simply the assignment of numbers according to a rule (Stevens' definition). Psychological measurement aims not to quantify the physical magnitude, but rather to map the relation between physical magntidue and the psychological one. Put another way, it is concerned with measuring sensation. 2146:

other way around (statistical law as the main article) with a note that at least some have used "empirical ...", I would not have objected. I find the term an oxymoron and think there is good reason it is not used. If you disagree, I'll do some database searches when I can but I think Google results tell the story. See my entry on the AfD page. If you're happy to swap as suggested, we can just get on with it. Cheers,

2767: 2193: 2677: 2602: 2529: 1655:

more than and less than are obvious). My PhD focuses on the unit of psychological measurement. Establishing a unit is necessary to measurement (in the classical theory, which is consistent with all of the natural sciences). Establishing a unit of psychological measurement is a very difficult task. In the Classical Theory, measurement is defined as the estimation of the ratio of a magnitude to a unit.

2274: 650:“true” scientific numbers." which I like less. Narens (1996) talks of "subject's subjective interpretations of numerals", but one would have to add something like, ", which is not the identity function". Perhaps one could say, "respondents interpret numbers not identical to their mathematical use" but that may be more murky. So, you can see, good wording doesn't come easy in this case. 260:

are linked, I very much doubt there will be a great deal of traffic early (other than among those looking specifically at new articles). Indeed, I'd be willing to bet on the number of visits being roughly Poisson with mean a function of (among other things) number of links and longevity. BTW, I see your view on skepticism is a hell'v'a lot like mine. Great to see. Take care mate

1615:

respondents were presented with a number and instructed to adjust a tone to be the prescriped number times a reference tone. The reference was heard first, followed by the adjustable tone. Respondents adjusted the tone until they were satisfied with their judgment. Each judgment was made many times intervoven with different stimuli and numerals, as needed.

1970:

getting to be pretty important! I also think we'll start seeing press stories mentioning it, so I'd like the system to be able to stand up to public scrutiny, even if it is a fairly rough scheme. Things on WP should lighten up for me in a week or two. Would you be willing to work on this with me? Please let me know, thanks again for sharing your ideas,

2348: 2315: 1623:

magnitudes and the respondent expects some stimuli to be the same give the prompts in the experiment. I'll have to try to get hold of the reference. The whole approach is very different to the way we would go about it in psychometrics. We would not ask respondents to report numbers; rather only to judge relations of greater or less than.

406:

associated (positive) results. Together, these show that Stevens' assumption of veridical judgments of numbers is wrong, but ratio scaled judgments seem correct. I've also added recent empirical results on the power law in the context of axiomatic psychophysics (when will someone write an entry on that discipline?).

2145:

Melcombe, the citation request was only meant to bring to editors' attention the term itself. I can see it's been used here and there in logic and philosophy but as it is now, the article gives the impression the term is widely accepted. I did not realize "statistical laws" redirected. If it were the

1899:

On a more light-hearted note, let me illustrate what I mean about units of measurement with a fictional story. There is a captain of a ship, and he is about to go to war. He wants to take as much coal as possible with him, but his men must travel 100 miles to get the coal. So he asks them a scientist

1888:

I took a brief look at the first chapter of your thesis and from it I see that you are concerned with issues of maintaining the same scale across measurements. Indeed! I may read more. One thing caught my eye which relates directly to what we are talking about, namely invariances. Ratio invariance is

1878:

As to the question of "unit of psychological measurement" I really don't know what you mean. What is the unit of physical measurement? How is that answerable in absence of a scale? Or are you talking about some Fechnerian ideas such as JND's? I'm quite mystified by what you are saying here, but would

1696:

1674:

As the quote from Luce (1994) stresses, the issue of variability is one of on-going discussion that reaches deep into the foundations of science in general. When you write "psychological data are never deterministic except when the distances are very large" is, on the face of it, nonsense unless you

1473:

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with this literature and the property of double cancellation. In this context, you may be interested in Steingrimsson & Luce (2005a), in which they test the Thomsen condition, a close relative of double cancellation. So, yes it has been tested in the auditory domain.

1868:

Michell (1999) writes, "...this prediction provides a specific test of the hypothesis that the attributes are quantitative...this test is called the Thomsen condition...a key condition in the theory of conjoint measurement...the important point is that a way, distinct from extensive measurement, had

1854:

I am unsure as to what you are getting at here. It sounds as if you are a priori sceptical about what has been discussed but will not let that deter you from further exploration. The company of Suppes, Krantz, Tversky, Tukey, Luce, Narens, and others is well worth a visit. The other part of what you

1835:

I can't think of a better way to cast the problems of this than by the following "The failure of measurement to "take" in cognition and psychometrics is related to a deep conceptual question concering the relationship between statistics, as away of describing randomness, and measurement, as a way of

1736:

I too enjoy the discussion. We should be careful though to not confuse perspective with the issue unless you hold the philosophical view that there is no truth, only perspective. As far as I can tell, you come to the issue of measurement from the psychometric POV. In my latest comments, I've tried

698:

What I tried to capture by "Without assuming veridical interpretation of numbers,..." is summary of what Narens (1996) writes, "...there are ratio magnitude estimation situations in which the multiplicative property fails but the commutative property holds and the situation can be measured in such a

649:

Second, my use of "veridical" comes from Steingrimsson & Luce (in press), where they write, "...veridical interpretation of numbers: some degree of distortion on the part of the respondent is to be expected." So, perhaps using that clarification would help? Zimmer (1995) talks of "interpret as

2221:

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright

1845:

I think it vital not to confuse foundational issues of measurement and approaches to measurement: in this context it is perhaps instructive to quote Michell, "The measurability thesis, the rock upon which quantitative psychology is built, and conjoint measurement theory, psychology's best chance of

1634:

I don't follow what you mean by "There's no way you could get deterministic results except in trivial cases". I suggest you read the Steingrimsson & Luce (2005a,b; 2006, in press) whose web location I gave in the above. They should both give you an idea of previous work as well as the current

1493:

I'm aware of the Thomsen condition, but there are a lot more issues. Joel Michell and others claim that generally, such attempts fail to properly demonstrate measurement has been achieved. I have a friend who knows much more than I do about this. I might get in touch with him and get his view about

1426:

A ratio scale requires demonstration that experimental outcomes are a function of the ratio of a magnitude to a unit. Formalisms are usually consistent with this. Quantitative structure is a scientific hypothesis. The devil is in the detail. The problem often lies in tests that are not sufficiently

1201:

259:

Editing is great, and when constructive it generally leads to greatly improved results. Personally, I find it much easier to start on an article and see what it looks like on screen. This means that for a day or two, or maybe a little longer, it's a bit rough. With a new article to which few others

2125:

Let's take the two articles separately. "Empirical statistical laws" did indeed lack citations, but it might have been better to add a citation tag rather than AfD. On "regression to the mean" you seem to want incredibly fine definition of every jot and tittle in the lede section. The sentence was

2012:

Hello again! Well, I apologise that I didn't get back to you in a fortnight! Could you send me an email? What I'd like to do, if you're OK with it, is to chat on the phone about this; I think you could help a lot with the assessment scheme, and with something like this I often find it much more

1980:

Walkerma, very happy to work on it with you. To look at it in a couple of weeks or so would be better for me also. I had a brief look at the rubric and examples. The fact there are examples of each classification is good. In the general scheme of things, this is a pretty good effort at a rubric if

1940:

Hello, (I saw you were discussing psychometrics on the IRT-article) I'm currently doing my master thesis and its related to psychometrics. I'm currently examining a new test that uses computer adaptive testing. I have, however, stumbled upon some issues with the way the algorithm of the test works

1859:

Precisely – I am very sceptical that anyone has achieved ratio measurement of perceptual phenomena, but I’m more than willing to explore claims to the contrary. Since you are suggesting – I would suggest Rasch is well worth a visit. Luce (1994) appears unaware of the links between Thurstone’s work

1749:

By the way, I forgot to say -- you should write an article on axiomatic psychophysics if you are able. There was nothing on Rasch measurement before I added articles. Having articles depends on contributors like you who know the area. So I hope you will contribute material in this area if you can.

1654:

has theoretical properties of measurement as required in physical sciences, and as per the representational theory. It is a stochastic measurement model. Psychological data are never deterministic except when the distances are very large, in which case the results are trivial (because relations of

1603:

I will try to get hold of this reference. First, I do not follow how this is "without assuming veridical interpretation of numbers". I'll await clarification of the point above. Second, are you able to describe the methods used? I find it difficult to believe there is any compelling evidence it is

1446:

2045:

When I try to contact you via Knowledge (XXG) email, I get the message, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." I think you'll need to activate something (I know my email is activated, I received such an email only a week or two

1622:

Yes, I meant these methods, but also statistical or other methods to test the hypothesis that measurements of perceived magnitudes were obtained. See my question about tests above. There's no way you could get deterministic results except in trivial cases where there are large differences between

422:

Thanks -- I hope you won't take anything I say as anything other than for the sake of clarification and refinement. I think it is good to discuss these things. Mostly, I'm happy with the changes. I do not like the wording "veridical interpretation of numbers". Can you clarify what this means? The

249:

You note that I have edited other articles very early. I sure have, because they have desperately needed attention. Wiki is immediate. People who come here judge the quality of articles at the time that they read them. The reputation of Wiki rests on veracity and quality, and incoherent stubs and

189:

the Institute with either person. How about trying to be constructive ... "amend poor English" comes across as being a tad abrasive. BTW, I assume you mean 'reinstated', not 'reinstalled'? I see from your talk page you've edited other articles very early - seems to be something of a difference in

173:

I edited the article to amend a poor use of English. You made a change to my edit, which reinstalled a poor use of English, so I reverted. I didn't notice that in that edit you had also included two new pars. I am sorry about that. But, that section excluded, you have now commented that "Changes

2118:

I have nominated the article for deletion on the grounds stated. Please provide a prominent source per Knowledge (XXG):Verification. I understand the motivation for having an article like this but question it on the grounds of this policy. I'll leave the content in regression to the mean for the

2092:

Holon - This is a REALLY good article, but it lacks inline references. It's probably just a matter of time until somebody tags it. I might be able to help with this, and I'm kind of wondering -- Do you know how to do inline references? Do the references at the end lend themselves to being put in

1614:

I hope I've addressed the first question in the above. By "describing the methods used", do you mean the estimation methods used in the published studies? In that case, with some variations, Ellermeier & Faulhammer, Zimmer, and Steingrimsson & Luce, used magnitude productions in which

1994:

Great! There haven't been any contentious issue with the quality, but I think a well thought-out set of examples would be good. The "stakes" are quite high just because soon most of the English Knowledge (XXG) will be referenced (for quality assessment) to these few examples. (The importance

1969:

on assessment, in particular the development of more rigorous rubrics and carefully designed examples. I didn't forget this suggestion, I was simply too busy to work on that issue at the time. We now have over 10% (and growing!) of the English Knowledge (XXG) assessed via this scheme, so it's

1883:

Units of physical measurement are defined in terms of precisely specified empirical conditions, which generally link to theory. For example, the definition of the metre in terms of the path of light traveling through a vacuum in a specific time interval, the kelvin in terms of a fraction of the

1873:

I have no disagreement. **update for clarification** The issue I have lies not with what is required for measurement, but what is required to demonstrate measurement has been successfully achieved. How it is tested. The main issue is that when data are stochastic, tests based on a deterministic

394:

You retained, "...consider three stimuli x, y, and z. If it is reported, for example, that the ratio of perceived intensity of z:y is 2:1, and of y:x is also 2:1, then it should be reported that the ratio of perceived intensity of z:x is 4:1." This is equivalent to numbers not being judged in a

405:

I have reformulated the entry to both incorporate what you wanted to retain as well as the rest of Narens' (1996) results. Specifically, I've spelled out Narens' (1996) multiplicative property, and the associated (negative) empirical results. I have also added his commutative property and the

1517:...a key condition in the theory of conjoint measurement...the important point is that a way, distinct from extensive measurement, had been specified whereby the hypothesis that an attribute has additive structure could be tested." (pp. 202-203). This is the same point as I attempted to make. 427:

I find your response very reasonable. The term "veridical" is sometimes used (Steingrimsson & Luce, in press) but I agree that it may not be entirely satisfactory. There are two things here. First, what meaning is the intent to convey, and second, is there are better way to express that

227:

Well, not easily, no. Frisch founded an Institute of Economics. Among those reading this sort of article, not many would interpret it this way. Nevertheless, you're quite right that the structure of the sentence needed improvement - and I can just about guarantee I would have done so pretty

1921:

The moral of the story is, I hope, obvious. This situation is simply ridiculous. Physical measurements are all but meaningless without knowledge of the unit. As Joel Michell says: "scientific measurement is properly defined as the estimation or discovery of the ratio of some magnitude of a

2541:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2614:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2126:

meant to say why the concept is important, which is what a lede section is meant to include. For readability's sake it is necessary to keep the lede clear of pedantic definitions and ciations that would be better placed in the main part of the article. For example, one might take

2073:. Can you help? I'm proposing that we start with your idea, and once we have the detailed description with lots of exemplars we can distil that to get the simplified version. Does this sound OK? If so, would you like to suggest what specifically we should do first? Cheers, 1830:

You said "there is a subtle but fundamental point to be made here: measurement with numbers is simply the assignment of numbers according to a rule". This seemed to be a fairly unambiguous statement, but as long as you appreciate the deficiencies of the definition, we have no

1840:

Rasch measurement models embody theoretical requirements for measurement stochastic form. The Rasch model is not a statistical model; it is a probabilistic measurement model. I’m not sure which fields Luce refers to above – statistics and axiomatic measurement? If so, I

1784:

I understand, but keep in mind you can always start with a brief description of some essentials. The point of Knowledge (XXG) is that it is constantly being developed. Hopefully, if you make a start, at some point you can add or someone else will pick up on it and add.

184:

Moriori, I agree with you there was a problem in one sentence and it's good you pointed it out, but you changed that sentence to read: He was a member of the International Statistics Institute where he studied with Ronald Fisher ... To my knowledge, Rasch didn't study

1893:

Precisely. Double cancellation is basically the same thing as invariance as articulated by Rasch, though Rasch articulated it in the context of an empirical frame of reference for measurement and expounded the concept in depth in terms of physical laws (Rasch,

983:

The way you explained is fine to me – I’m just not clear on precisely what constitutes "veridical interpretation of numbers". I’m pretty sure I understand now -- I think it means "interpretation" that would literally make the number a measurement of physical

2340:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

423:

point is not how numbers are interpreted; it is whether the numbers are measurements of perceptions. If this is exactly the way it is stated in the literature on axiomatic psychophysics, fair enough, though I think it is very misleading.

1716:

We come to the same topic from very different perspectives, so I don't mean to dispute that the claims you state have been made. It is just a matter of discussing them from the different perspctives. I am enjoying the discussion in any

1474:

The property is related to extensive measurement and is necessary and sufficient to establish an additive representation. A web-search reveles that the paper I mentioned as well as many related ones are available on Luce's webgage (

2385:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in

1697:

is what is needed to get ratio scales. That is testible upto the error of estimation and is a the heart of Naren's (1996) commutative property, Luce's (2002) proportion commuativity and both are quite well sustained in audition.

1889:

what is needed to get ratio scales. That is testible upto the error of estimation and is a the heart of Naren's (1996) commutative property, Luce's (2002) proportion commuativity and both are quite well sustained in audition.

1825:

You take my words too literally. If I were arguing Stevens' version of measurement and that to be the end of it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The entire thrust of the discussion is what underlay his methodology.

33:

to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

2720: 2642: 2569: 1925:

I must be very clear though, my view is that ignoring the importance of a unit has been a problem in measurement theory quite generally. Psychometrics is terrible in this respect as far as I'm concerned. Take care

1129:

2445:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 400:

You retained, "Narens (1996) formally stated and tested these assumptions, and reported negative results." Narens did indeed formulated the underlying assumptions, but he neither performed nor reported any

1874:

framework are problematic. Above, I referred to deterministic cases as being trivial. It is hard to explain this point in depth. If you still want me to explain, I'll elaborate but I'll leave it for now.

2704:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2626:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2553:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2119:

moment but the linked article needs to sources for the content to remain. I am assuming good faith, I hope my concerns are clear. Please discuss if not. Cheers. Holon (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1922:

quantitative attribute to a unit of the same attribute" (Michell, 1997, p. 358). See pp. 23-5 of my thesis for emphasis on how fundamental uits of measurement are to all of the physical sciences.

294:

Dear Holon, both intro to Quantity page must be somehow merged; for as now its not good: the definition is not strong, quantity is not a relation, etc. I wait your combined version today. Thanks

2169:

logs so won't be noticed by many who contribute to these discussions. (Sometimes a bot fixes a missed step, but it appears this one has escaped its notice too.) I'd suggest also including it at

2690: 1850:

I mean no offense, but this seems to be a strawman: where has there been any such counfusion? Keeping this distinction in mind is utterly fundamental to all of my applied and pure research.

699:

way that (i) a ratio scale S on the stimuli results, and (ii) there is a strict order preserving mapping from the numerals...into the positive real numbers..." That is, for all stimuli

1802:

I'll see if I get inspired :). In the meantime, I intend to make just a few changes in the entry we are discussing in response to our conversation here...I don't know when, though...

900: 2070: 2014: 1966: 2222:

holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the

351:

I'll be on vacation shortly (I'm having trouble transcluding the announce on both my talk page and my user page.) I may comment in the next few minutes, or when I get back. —

139:, which I made into a subcategory of measurement, since "Psychometrics is the field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement" according to 1995:

criterion has been much more contentious, because some people get very upset when told their favourite topic is unimportant!) I'll contact you in a fortnight or so. Thanks,

1379: 2489: 974: 2170: 1335: 1048: 939: 688: 627: 577: 506: 1172:

Do you bring Thurstone into the picture as another approach to measurement? If so, there is no contradiction: to stay with the theme, see e.g., Luce (1994) on this (

777: 1283: 1244: 542: 1593: 1567: 1309: 2286:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. 1013: 837: 817: 797: 757: 737: 717: 471: 451: 2298: 94:

and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the

2375: 1869:

been specified whereby the hypothesis that an attribute has additive structure could be tested." (pp. 202-203). This is the same point as I attempted to make.

579:

from an experimental outcome? I assume it would be evaluated, for example, just by comparing the produced magnitude with the reference to see if it is in fact

1084:

I only wrote this in response to your saying, "I think it means "interpretation" that would literally make the number a measurement of physical magnitude."

297: 91: 2828: 2395: 1513:

Michell (1999) writes, "...this prediction provides a specific test of the hypothesis that the attributes are quantitative...this test is called the

58: 1595:

are reduced to numbers and then their equality is tested. Most commonly, such tests are done using non-parametric tests such as the Mann-Whitney U.

309: 1635:

ones. The nice thing about what they have done is that it a comprehensive study of all the issues you have raised in a single series of papers.

2515: 2241:. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a 2403: 2253: 906:

In sum, the commutative property by itself is sufficient to ensure ratio-scale measurement. If the multiplicative property holds, it means

2742: 2656: 2583: 2500: 2470: 2242: 2514:. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to 1447:

you write seems to hark back to the issue of error in measurement. I talked some about that in the above and some more in the following.

2322:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 2260: 1864:

on the latter. Surely he is not unaware of these links, since the BTL is a Rasch model (it has the properties that define Rasch models).

2130:(which appears on your user page as something started by you) and notice just how many undefined terms there are in the lede section. 1462:

Are you familiar with measurement theory and tests for double cancellation and the like? Do you know whether any such tests were used?

1855:

write seems to hark back to the issue of error in measurement. I talked some about that in the above and some more in the following.

1381:. If you are interested in the latest on this subject, you can look at Steingrimsson & Luce (in press) as a technical report at 2832: 2230: 2013:

effective to brainstorm on the phone. If you're uncomfortable with this, we can just continue on the wiki. There has also been

2379: 2371: 433:

The meaning: this is best explained formally, but I was trying to avoid doing that in the entry, perhaps not a good choice? Let

2738: 2652: 2579: 2511: 2496: 2493: 2466: 2713: 2635: 2562: 2046:

back). Alternatively, my email address simply consists of my WP username in front of the domain name potsdamDOTedu. Cheers,

1918:

Scientist: Sir, there is know way of knowing what measurement of coal is equal to the measurement of stone the ship can hold.

63: 43: 30: 2257: 2820: 2778: 2756: 1951:

Could you send me an email using the wiki email function? I'm flat out right now but will get back to you soon as possible.

2289:

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

2365: 1909:

Captain: What do you mean you don't know, I asked you to measure how much mass the ship can hold and to measure the coal.

2824: 2399: 2359: 53: 2457:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1836:

describing structure. The lack of an adequate theory for this relationship is, in reality, a weakness of both fields."

68: 2725: 2647: 2574: 2462: 1150: 305: 1173: 1604:

possible to get ratio measurements of perceived magnitudes, particularly just by "judging numbers". Thanks again.

79: 1532:

There must be some error; i.e. any results would only hold stochastically (unless all magnitudes were far apart).

99: 38: 1177: 2701: 2623: 2550: 87: 690:

and the several subsequent experiements (Ellermeier & Faulhammer, 2000; Zimmer, 2005, ) found it to fail.

2807: 316:

I am not going ahead but waiting your version of merging of the introduction to Quantity. Below is my part.

2215: 846: 2031:

Hi again :) No, not a problem, but I tried to email and having trouble. I'll leave a message on your page.

356: 301: 156: 148: 136: 2836: 2458: 2330: 2282: 2248:

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is

2238: 2202: 2774: 2760: 2294: 2162: 322: 48: 2484:

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of

2854: 2413: 2098: 152: 132: 128: 2684: 2610: 2537: 2434: 2425: 2323: 1104: 1945: 387: 261: 191: 103: 2697: 2619: 2546: 2454: 2438: 2135: 2078: 2051: 2022: 2017:, and I'd like the two proposals to be considered together - could you leave a comment? Cheers, 1811: 1771: 1340: 1065:

Believe me, I'm well aware psychological measurement aims not to quantify the physical magnitude.

413: 976:. That's it. Perhaps this is the way to go, simply talk about it formally. What do you think? 73: 944: 2844: 2803: 2165:

and completing the steps you missed out? At the moment this AfD is not included in any of the

386:

I understand that you would like to retain some details in the criticism section of the entry

352: 2709: 2631: 2558: 2450: 2442: 95: 2732: 131:

because it seems inconsistent to have only a few topics on psychological measurement in the

2790: 2712:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2705: 2634:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2627: 2561:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2554: 2453:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2446: 2224: 2166: 1314: 1018: 909: 658: 597: 547: 476: 2850: 2785:

orphaned image, no information on an encyclopedic use, no information about source of data

2407: 2094: 1543:

Are you referring to the statistics used? Behavioral axiom testing is usually of the form

1427:

sensitive to relevant departures to show that measurement fails. I'll check it out anyhow.

762: 1259: 1220: 518: 220:. It is easy to see why someone could interpret that to mean he studied at the institute 2392:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

1572: 1546: 1288: 2178: 1411:

Narens (1996) showed his commutative property is sufficient to establish a ratio scale.

109: 18: 2789:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1396:

Do you know what tests the results were subjected to in order to claim "a ratio scale

998: 822: 802: 782: 742: 722: 702: 456: 436: 2131: 2074: 2047: 2018: 1996: 1971: 1153:

for an overview. Please keep in mind the axiomatic approach is not the only approach.

1107: 339: 216: 212: 140: 78:

If you're ready for the complete list of Knowledge (XXG) documentation, there's also

544:

be evaluated? I mean, what kind of test is used in this context to evaluate whether

1475: 1382: 395:

veridical way, as it (now) said above. This was obviously not clear in my editing.

251: 175: 2676: 2601: 2528: 1846:

checking the foundations upon which this rock stands..." (Michell, 1999, p. 213).

1202:

checking the foundations upon which this rock stands..." (Michell, 1999, p. 213).

2127: 1651: 1285:

is usually required to be monotonic and order-preserving, i.e., for two numbers

1174:

http://www.imbs.uci.edu/personnel/luce/1994/Luce_Psychological%20Review_1994.pdf

515:

I’m not very familiar with the formalisms in axiomatic psychophysics. How might

283: 144: 124: 2378:

justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See

135:, and the category appeared to be in some disarray. Especially as there is the 2147: 2032: 1982: 1952: 1927: 1860:

and the Rasch model, and between the Rasch model and conjoint additivity? See

1786: 1751: 1605: 633: 365: 343: 330: 160: 2228:

to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Knowledge (XXG). The page on

1814: 1754: 1608: 636: 594:

As I wrote below, Narens' (1996) multiplicative axiom tests directly whether

416: 2174: 1178:

http://www.imbs.uci.edu/personnel/luce/1993/NarensLuce_PsychScience_1993.pdf

2308:

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to

1015:

a function describing how humans interpret numbers, then veridical means

453:

be a cognitive function capturing respondents interpretation of numbers,

2843:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

2716:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2638:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2565:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

203:

the institute with both persons. But your sentence stated the following

2694:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2441:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

1106:. Stevens' definition of measurement is defective (Michell, 1999). See 244:

used in that way but hey, what would I know, I'm just an Aussie ;-: -->

174:

made were factually incorrect". What changes were factually incorrect?

2188:

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:DavidAndrich.tif

342:. I have detailed issues regarding parts of the proposed text. Cheers 473:, then by veridical I try to capture the identity function, namely 2858: 2746: 2660: 2587: 2504: 2474: 2419: 2263: 2182: 2155: 2139: 2102: 2082: 2055: 2040: 2026: 1999: 1985: 1974: 1955: 1930: 1861: 1789: 1774: 368: 359: 346: 333: 286: 264: 254: 194: 178: 163: 390:. In this context I would like to point out a couple of things. 2729:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1760:

Yes, I would like to do that, but I fear it will be a big job...

409:

I hope you will find this to include what you wanted to retain.

2719:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

2641:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

2568:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

2488:

into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place

237:. You say tomatos and I say tomatos. (Some even say tomatoes). 127:, and a few other psychological and sociological terms, out of 2765: 2272: 2191: 995:

It simply means that there is no cognitive distortion. With

2336:

to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

2234:

may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

655:

Narens' (1996) multiplicative axiom tests directly whether

2510:

This message has been automatically sent to all users in

1103:

I discussed precisely this in detail in Ch1 of my thesis

205:

He was a member of the International Statistics Institute

2688:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2831:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

2813:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

2700:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

2622:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

2549:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

2387: 2249: 2796:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

2382:

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

2206:. However, it currently is missing information on its 2069:

OK, I think we have enough people to make a start on

1575: 1549: 1343: 1317: 1291: 1262: 1223: 1021: 1001: 947: 912: 849: 825: 805: 785: 765: 745: 725: 705: 661: 600: 550: 521: 479: 459: 439: 2402:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 2252:. If you have any questions please ask them at the 1903:Captain: so then, how much coal can the ship hold? 2269:File permission problem with File:DavidAndrich.tif 1587: 1561: 1494:this literature. Thanks for the url, that's great. 1373: 1329: 1303: 1277: 1238: 1042: 1007: 968: 933: 894: 831: 811: 791: 771: 751: 731: 711: 682: 621: 571: 536: 500: 465: 445: 2433:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 1476:http://www.imbs.uci.edu/personnel/luce/luce.html 1383:http://www.imbs.uci.edu/tr/abs/2006/mbs06_03.pdf 49:Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial 2492:, please read the proposal and comment there. 2358:If you believe the media meets the criteria at 329:Okay, I'll look at it as soon as I can Azamat. 2192: 2398:. You may wish to read the Knowledge (XXG)'s 583:time the physical magnitude of the reference. 8: 2372:Knowledge (XXG):File copyright tags#Fair use 147:and the few other topics which were in both 2490:at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board 2237:Please add this information by editing the 159:which is now a subcategory of measurement. 2671: 2245:and ask for a chance to fix the problem. 86:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 1574: 1548: 1342: 1316: 1290: 1261: 1222: 1020: 1000: 946: 911: 848: 824: 804: 784: 764: 744: 724: 704: 660: 599: 549: 520: 478: 458: 438: 2297:or another acceptable free license (see 2088:Law of comparative judgment - References 74:Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages 2802:notice, but please explain why in your 2303:at the site of the original publication 2293:make a note permitting reuse under the 2171:WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science 2015:a proposal to simplify the descriptions 1912:Scientist: Yes sir, we have done that. 759:, and with the psychophysical function 379:Regarding changes to Stevens' Power Law 2516:Category:Opted-out of message delivery 2161:Would you mind taking another look at 1936:Question about CAT and dependent items 895:{\displaystyle \psi (x)=W(p)\psi (t).} 199:Hi smhhms. OK, so Rasch didn't study 7: 2847:of each individual file for details. 2685:2019 Arbitration Committee elections 2611:2018 Arbitration Committee elections 2538:2017 Arbitration Committee elections 1149:Have you read Thurstone's work? See 2702:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 2624:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 2551:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 2380:Knowledge (XXG):File copyright tags 2370:or one of the other tags listed at 1965:Hi Holon, some time ago you posted 1915:Captain: Then what is the problem? 39:The Five Pillars of Knowledge (XXG) 2791:deleted for any of several reasons 2781:because of the following concern: 2668:ArbCom 2019 election voter message 2595:ArbCom 2018 election voter message 2522:ArbCom 2017 election voter message 1246:above simply a monotonic function? 14: 2816:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 2799:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 2459:review the candidates' statements 1821:Further discussion on measurement 1650:Thanks, I will check it out. The 240:Matter of etymology - never seen 2675: 2600: 2527: 2480:Fair Use in Australia discussion 2360:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 2346: 2313: 312:) 08:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 282:Misplaced comment moved here. -- 90:! By the way, please be sure to 2723:and submit your choices on the 2645:and submit your choices on the 2572:and submit your choices on the 2512:Category:Australian Wikipedians 1967:your comments & suggestions 1862:http://www.rasch.org/memo24.htm 632:Discussion continued below ... 275:Comment added to your user page 2465:. For the Election committee, 2435:Arbitration Committee election 2426:ArbCom elections are now open! 2420:02:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC) 2404:Media copyright questions page 2254:Media copyright questions page 1906:Scientist: Sir, I don't know. 1368: 1362: 1353: 1347: 1272: 1266: 1233: 1227: 1031: 1025: 957: 951: 922: 916: 886: 880: 874: 868: 859: 853: 671: 665: 610: 604: 560: 554: 531: 525: 489: 483: 164:11:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 2747:00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 2661:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 2475:13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 2326:. If you take this step, add 2264:07:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC) 2103:13:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) 2000:07:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 1948:14:43, 4 October 2006 (GMT1) 1765:I look forward to your reply. 347:05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 334:15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 287:09:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 255:21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 195:08:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 179:07:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 80:Knowledge (XXG):Topical index 2608:Hello, Holon. Voting in the 2588:18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) 2535:Hello, Holon. Voting in the 2396:criteria for speedy deletion 1986:11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1975:05:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) 1374:{\displaystyle W(p)<W(q)} 265:02:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 59:How to write a great article 2835:allows discussion to reach 2461:and submit your choices on 1956:04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 1151:Law of comparative judgment 941:. Since it fails, we have 2874: 2827:exist. In particular, the 2739:MediaWiki message delivery 2653:MediaWiki message delivery 2580:MediaWiki message delivery 2497:MediaWiki message delivery 2494:MediaWiki message delivery 2467:MediaWiki message delivery 2167:WP:AfD#Current discussions 2112:You said on my talk page: 2108:Empirical statistical laws 1944:thank you for your time. 969:{\displaystyle W(p)\neq p} 2859:01:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 2821:proposed deletion process 2505:11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) 2347: 2314: 2183:10:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 2156:14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 2140:13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 2056:05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 2041:03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 2027:07:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 1931:05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 1815:05:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 1790:06:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1775:06:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 1755:11:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 1609:11:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 637:05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 417:07:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 369:02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 360:02:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 115:P.S. I like messages :-P 2737:to your user talk page. 2214:. Knowledge (XXG) takes 2151: 2036: 1400:on the stimuli results"? 378: 215:and also, briefly, with 112:9 July 2005 08:48 (UTC) 98:, add a question to the 2083:03:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 235:instate, vt, to install 2787: 2770: 2277: 2250:a list of your uploads 2243:request for undeletion 2239:image description page 2197: 2196:File Copyright problem 1961:Rubrics for assessment 1589: 1563: 1375: 1331: 1330:{\displaystyle p<q} 1305: 1279: 1240: 1044: 1043:{\displaystyle W(p)=p} 1009: 970: 935: 934:{\displaystyle W(p)=p} 896: 833: 813: 793: 773: 753: 733: 713: 684: 683:{\displaystyle W(p)=p} 623: 622:{\displaystyle W(p)=p} 573: 572:{\displaystyle W(p)=p} 538: 502: 501:{\displaystyle W(p)=p} 467: 447: 157:Category:Psychometrics 149:Category:Psychometrics 137:Category:Psychometrics 92:sign your name on Talk 2783: 2779:proposed for deletion 2769: 2698:Arbitration Committee 2682:Hello! Voting in the 2620:Arbitration Committee 2547:Arbitration Committee 2439:Arbitration Committee 2283:File:DavidAndrich.tif 2280:Thanks for uploading 2276: 2203:File:DavidAndrich.tif 2200:Thanks for uploading 2195: 1590: 1564: 1376: 1332: 1306: 1280: 1241: 1045: 1010: 971: 936: 897: 834: 814: 794: 774: 772:{\displaystyle \psi } 754: 734: 714: 685: 624: 574: 539: 503: 468: 448: 300:comment was added by 2833:files for discussion 2808:the file's talk page 2366:non-free fair use in 2362:, use a tag such as 2093:line? Etc. Regards, 1879:like to understand. 1573: 1547: 1341: 1315: 1289: 1278:{\displaystyle W(p)} 1260: 1239:{\displaystyle W(p)} 1221: 1019: 999: 945: 910: 847: 823: 803: 783: 763: 743: 723: 703: 659: 598: 548: 537:{\displaystyle W(p)} 519: 477: 457: 437: 153:category:measurement 133:Category:Measurement 129:category:measurement 2443:arbitration process 1588:{\displaystyle A,B} 1562:{\displaystyle A=B} 1304:{\displaystyle p,q} 325:, 24 February 2006 2825:deletion processes 2771: 2714:arbitration policy 2636:arbitration policy 2563:arbitration policy 2455:arbitration policy 2394:, as described on 2278: 2198: 1585: 1559: 1371: 1327: 1301: 1275: 1236: 1040: 1005: 966: 931: 892: 829: 809: 789: 769: 749: 729: 709: 680: 619: 569: 534: 498: 463: 443: 388:Stevens' power law 338:Please discuss at 155:, are now just in 106:. Again, welcome! 64:Naming conventions 44:How to edit a page 2775:File:MC ICC 1.PNG 2761:File:MC ICC 1.PNG 2757:Proposed deletion 2753: 2752: 2518: 2218:very seriously. 1515:Thomsen condition 1008:{\displaystyle W} 832:{\displaystyle t} 812:{\displaystyle p} 792:{\displaystyle x} 752:{\displaystyle p} 732:{\displaystyle t} 712:{\displaystyle x} 466:{\displaystyle p} 446:{\displaystyle W} 323:Azamat Abdoullaev 313: 302:Azamat Abdoullaev 289: 2865: 2848: 2818: 2817: 2801: 2800: 2768: 2736: 2679: 2672: 2604: 2531: 2509: 2416: 2410: 2400:image use policy 2369: 2353: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2335: 2329: 2320: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2275: 2225:image use policy 2194: 1594: 1592: 1591: 1586: 1568: 1566: 1565: 1560: 1380: 1378: 1377: 1372: 1336: 1334: 1333: 1328: 1310: 1308: 1307: 1302: 1284: 1282: 1281: 1276: 1245: 1243: 1242: 1237: 1049: 1047: 1046: 1041: 1014: 1012: 1011: 1006: 975: 973: 972: 967: 940: 938: 937: 932: 901: 899: 898: 893: 838: 836: 835: 830: 818: 816: 815: 810: 798: 796: 795: 790: 778: 776: 775: 770: 758: 756: 755: 750: 738: 736: 735: 730: 718: 716: 715: 710: 689: 687: 686: 681: 628: 626: 625: 620: 578: 576: 575: 570: 543: 541: 540: 535: 507: 505: 504: 499: 472: 470: 469: 464: 452: 450: 449: 444: 295: 281: 102:or ask me on my 54:Picture tutorial 2873: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2842: 2829:speedy deletion 2815: 2814: 2798: 2797: 2766: 2764: 2730: 2670: 2665: 2664: 2605: 2597: 2592: 2591: 2532: 2524: 2482: 2463:the voting page 2429: 2414: 2408: 2388:your upload log 2368:|article name}} 2363: 2345: 2343: 2333: 2327: 2312: 2310: 2273: 2271: 2210:status and its 2190: 2110: 2090: 2071:this initiative 1963: 1938: 1823: 1571: 1570: 1545: 1544: 1339: 1338: 1313: 1312: 1287: 1286: 1258: 1257: 1219: 1218: 1017: 1016: 997: 996: 943: 942: 908: 907: 845: 844: 821: 820: 801: 800: 781: 780: 761: 760: 741: 740: 739:, all numerals 721: 720: 701: 700: 657: 656: 596: 595: 546: 545: 517: 516: 475: 474: 455: 454: 435: 434: 381: 296:—The preceding 277: 224:those persons. 171: 121: 69:Manual of Style 22: 12: 11: 5: 2871: 2869: 2839:for deletion. 2819:will stop the 2763: 2754: 2751: 2750: 2721:the candidates 2691:eligible users 2680: 2669: 2666: 2643:the candidates 2606: 2599: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2570:the candidates 2533: 2526: 2525: 2523: 2520: 2481: 2478: 2432: 2428: 2423: 2344:permissions-en 2338: 2337: 2311:permissions-en 2306: 2270: 2267: 2231:copyright tags 2189: 2186: 2159: 2158: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2109: 2106: 2089: 2086: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1989: 1988: 1962: 1959: 1937: 1934: 1898: 1896: 1895: 1886: 1885: 1876: 1875: 1866: 1865: 1852: 1851: 1843: 1842: 1833: 1832: 1822: 1819: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1779: 1778: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1617: 1616: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1584: 1581: 1578: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1265: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1004: 988: 987: 986: 985: 978: 977: 965: 962: 959: 956: 953: 950: 930: 927: 924: 921: 918: 915: 903: 902: 891: 888: 885: 882: 879: 876: 873: 870: 867: 864: 861: 858: 855: 852: 841: 840: 828: 808: 788: 768: 748: 728: 708: 692: 691: 679: 676: 673: 670: 667: 664: 652: 651: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 618: 615: 612: 609: 606: 603: 587: 586: 585: 584: 568: 565: 562: 559: 556: 553: 533: 530: 527: 524: 510: 509: 497: 494: 491: 488: 485: 482: 462: 442: 430: 429: 403: 402: 397: 396: 380: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 336: 292: 291: 276: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 247: 246: 245: 231: 230: 229: 170: 169:Re Georg Rasch 167: 120: 117: 84: 83: 76: 71: 66: 61: 56: 51: 46: 41: 21: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2870: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2846: 2840: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2811: 2809: 2805: 2794: 2792: 2786: 2782: 2780: 2776: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2734: 2728: 2727: 2722: 2717: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2644: 2639: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2616: 2613: 2612: 2603: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2566: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2530: 2521: 2519: 2517: 2513: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2479: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2427: 2424: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2411: 2406:. Thank you. 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2383: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2367: 2361: 2356: 2354: 2352:wikimedia.org 2332: 2325: 2321: 2319:wikimedia.org 2307: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2284: 2268: 2266: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2256:. Thank you. 2255: 2251: 2246: 2244: 2240: 2235: 2233: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2187: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2107: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2087: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1968: 1960: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1949: 1947: 1942: 1935: 1933: 1932: 1929: 1923: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1863: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1831:disagreement. 1829: 1828: 1827: 1820: 1818: 1816: 1813: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1791: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1582: 1579: 1576: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1384: 1365: 1359: 1356: 1350: 1344: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1269: 1263: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1230: 1224: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1109: 1108:psychometrics 1105: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1037: 1034: 1028: 1022: 1002: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 982: 981: 980: 979: 963: 960: 954: 948: 928: 925: 919: 913: 905: 904: 889: 883: 877: 871: 865: 862: 856: 850: 843: 842: 826: 806: 786: 766: 746: 726: 706: 697: 696: 695: 677: 674: 668: 662: 654: 653: 648: 647: 638: 635: 631: 630: 616: 613: 607: 601: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 582: 566: 563: 557: 551: 528: 522: 514: 513: 512: 511: 495: 492: 486: 480: 460: 440: 432: 431: 426: 425: 424: 420: 418: 415: 410: 407: 399: 398: 393: 392: 391: 389: 384: 370: 367: 363: 362: 361: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 345: 341: 340:talk:quantity 337: 335: 332: 328: 327: 326: 324: 320: 317: 314: 311: 307: 303: 299: 290: 288: 285: 279: 278: 274: 266: 263: 258: 257: 256: 253: 248: 243: 239: 238: 236: 232: 226: 225: 223: 219: 218: 217:Ragnar Frisch 214: 213:Ronald Fisher 211:studied with 209: 206: 202: 198: 197: 196: 193: 188: 183: 182: 181: 180: 177: 168: 166: 165: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 141:Psychometrics 138: 134: 130: 126: 118: 116: 113: 111: 107: 105: 101: 97: 93: 89: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 60: 57: 55: 52: 50: 47: 45: 42: 40: 37: 36: 35: 32: 27: 26: 20: 17:Welcome from 16: 2845:page history 2841: 2823:, but other 2812: 2804:edit summary 2795: 2788: 2784: 2772: 2724: 2718: 2695: 2689: 2683: 2646: 2640: 2617: 2609: 2607: 2573: 2567: 2544: 2536: 2534: 2508: 2485: 2483: 2430: 2391: 2384: 2374:, and add a 2357: 2342: 2339: 2331:OTRS pending 2309: 2302: 2288: 2281: 2279: 2247: 2236: 2229: 2223: 2220: 2211: 2207: 2201: 2199: 2160: 2124: 2111: 2091: 2068: 1964: 1950: 1943: 1939: 1924: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1897: 1887: 1877: 1867: 1853: 1844: 1834: 1824: 1809: 1748: 1602: 1514: 1397: 1130:methodology. 693: 580: 421: 411: 408: 404: 385: 383:Dear Holon, 382: 353:Arthur Rubin 321: 318: 315: 293: 280: 241: 234: 221: 210: 207: 204: 200: 186: 172: 122: 119:Rasch models 114: 108: 100:village pump 85: 28: 24: 23: 2726:voting page 2648:voting page 2575:voting page 2173:. Regards, 2163:WP:AFDHOWTO 2128:Rasch model 1652:Rasch model 242:reinstalled 145:Rasch model 125:Rasch model 29:Hello, and 2851:FastilyBot 2710:topic bans 2632:topic bans 2559:topic bans 2451:topic bans 2409:Skier Dude 2095:Lou Sander 984:magnitude. 799:is judged 779:, then if 96:help pages 88:Wikipedian 2837:consensus 2777:has been 2773:The file 2706:site bans 2628:site bans 2555:site bans 2447:site bans 2376:rationale 2299:this list 2258:Fut.Perf. 2216:copyright 2208:copyright 110:Redwolf24 104:Talk page 19:Redwolf24 2849:Thanks, 2486:Fair Use 2295:CC-BY-SA 2132:Melcombe 2075:Walkerma 2048:Walkerma 2019:Walkerma 1997:Walkerma 1972:Walkerma 1946:Thomasrm 1750:Regards 428:meaning. 310:contribs 298:unsigned 123:I moved 25:Welcome! 2733:NoACEMM 364:Cheers 252:Moriori 233:BTW -- 176:Moriori 31:welcome 2806:or on 2437:. The 2212:source 1894:1977). 1841:agree. 1812:Rutuag 1772:Rutuag 1569:where 839:, then 819:times 414:Rutuag 401:tests. 357:(talk) 284:cesarb 262:smhhms 192:smhhms 2148:Holon 2033:Holon 1983:Holon 1953:Holon 1928:Holon 1787:Holon 1752:Holon 1717:case. 1606:Holon 634:Holon 366:Holon 344:Holon 331:Holon 228:soon. 161:Salsb 143:. So 2855:talk 2743:talk 2696:The 2657:talk 2618:The 2584:talk 2545:The 2501:talk 2471:talk 2415:talk 2324:here 2305:; or 2179:talk 2175:Qwfp 2152:talk 2136:talk 2099:talk 2079:talk 2052:talk 2037:talk 2023:talk 1357:< 1337:iff 1322:< 719:and 306:talk 222:with 151:and 2759:of 2431:Hi, 2355:. 1217:Is 208:who 2857:) 2810:. 2793:. 2745:) 2735:}} 2731:{{ 2708:, 2659:) 2651:. 2630:, 2586:) 2578:. 2557:, 2503:) 2473:) 2449:, 2418:) 2390:. 2364:{{ 2334:}} 2328:{{ 2301:) 2181:) 2154:) 2138:) 2101:) 2081:) 2054:) 2039:) 2025:) 1817:) 1478:). 1311:, 1180:). 961:≠ 878:ψ 851:ψ 767:ψ 629:. 419:) 355:| 308:• 201:at 187:at 2853:( 2741:( 2655:( 2582:( 2499:( 2469:( 2412:( 2261:☼ 2177:( 2150:( 2134:( 2097:( 2077:( 2050:( 2035:( 2021:( 1810:( 1777:) 1770:( 1583:B 1580:, 1577:A 1557:B 1554:= 1551:A 1398:S 1385:. 1369:) 1366:q 1363:( 1360:W 1354:) 1351:p 1348:( 1345:W 1325:q 1319:p 1299:q 1296:, 1293:p 1273:) 1270:p 1267:( 1264:W 1234:) 1231:p 1228:( 1225:W 1038:p 1035:= 1032:) 1029:p 1026:( 1023:W 1003:W 964:p 958:) 955:p 952:( 949:W 929:p 926:= 923:) 920:p 917:( 914:W 890:. 887:) 884:t 881:( 875:) 872:p 869:( 866:W 863:= 860:) 857:x 854:( 827:t 807:p 787:x 747:p 727:t 707:x 678:p 675:= 672:) 669:p 666:( 663:W 617:p 614:= 611:) 608:p 605:( 602:W 581:p 567:p 564:= 561:) 558:p 555:( 552:W 532:) 529:p 526:( 523:W 508:. 496:p 493:= 490:) 487:p 484:( 481:W 461:p 441:W 412:( 304:( 82:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index