This study argues that readability formulas should be used as one measure of linguistic equivalence when adapting psychometric scales from one language to another. Assuming that the psychological structure being measured was not changed, it was observed that calculated readability levels and interpretations were different for two different…

Person-fit analyses are commonly used to detect aberrant responding in self-report data. Nonparametric person fit statistics do not require fitting a parametric test theory model and have performed well compared to other person-fit statistics. However, detection of aberrant responding has primarily focused on dominance response data, thus the…

Utilizing the perspective of finite mixture modeling, this note considers whether a finding of a plausible one-parameter logistic model could be spurious for a population with substantial unobserved heterogeneity. A theoretically and empirically important setting is discussed involving the mixture of two latent classes, with the less restrictive…

The target paper, "Rethinking Traditional Methods of Survey Validation" (Andrew Maul), raises some interesting critical ideas, both old and new, about the validation of self-report surveys. As indicated by Dr. Maul, recent policy initiatives in the United States (e.g., ESSA) have led to a demand for assessments of…

This is a response to a focus article by Briggs and Peck (2015) in issue 13(2). It should have been published in issue 13(3-4) alongside a rejoinder by Briggs and Peck that did appear. Due to an oversight, it was not published there and appears here. See issue 13(3-4) for a rejoinder to this response. Briggs and Peck (2015) propose what amounts to…

The literature on bibliometric indices for assessing scholarly impact, in particular the "h" index (Hirsch, 2005) and its many variants, is extensive, but nevertheless Ruscio and colleagues (this issue) succeed in making a valuable contribution. They have made the effort of collecting publication and citation data for no less than 1,750…

Ruscio and colleagues (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) have done a great service by systematically comparing indices of scholarly impact. Three aspects of their work are particularly valuable: (1) Their assessment of the proliferating collection of metrics, whose development has become something of a cottage industry,…

In their article Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) present a comparative study of some of the different variants of the "h" index. The study evaluates a total of 22 metrics, including the "h" index and "h"-type indices, as well as other conventional measures. The novelty of their work is to a large extent…

Humphry (this issue) deserves credit for drawing attention to the long-neglected fact that differences in item discrimination parameters are often due to empirical factors and not the product of random error components. In doing so, Humphry offers a psychometrically elegant, coherent, and practically important new model that is more flexible while…

Behavioral scientists have struggled with units of measurement for as long as they have struggled with measurement itself. Psychology's sole attempt at an explicit unit of measurement--the Lexile Framework for Reading (Stenner, Burdick, Sanford, & Burdick, 2006)--has been and continues to be ignored by the psychometric "cognoscenti."…

Describing, explaining, and discussing various modern indices of scholarly impact as accomplished by Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) is highly commendable, as such measures get increasingly important in hiring and promotion decisions. The author agrees with almost all points made in the target article, except the…

Ruscio and colleagues (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) provide a thoughtful empirical analysis of 22 different measures of individual scholarly impact. The simplest metric is number of publications, which Simonton (1997) found to be a reasonable predictor of career trajectories. Although the assessment of the scholarly…

Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) write of a thing with which scientists and scholars are all too familiar, the assessment of published research and of its authors. The author was startled to discover how little the agenda of the paper seems to engage with factors one relies on for salary and promotion…

In this commentary, the author points out few issues, one being that there are models mislabeled as diagnostic, which deal with linear decompositions of item difficulties rather than estimating multidimensional skill variables. The author discusses the issue that there are many new names for essentially well-known models for multiple simultaneous…

Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) evaluate 22 bibliometric indicators, including conventional measures, like the number of publications, the "h" index, and many "h" index variants. To assess the quality of the indicators, their well-justified criteria encompass conceptual, empirical, and practical…