Category Archives: Measurement

Psychometricians: Oh, The Humanity!

In today’s post I ponder a question that has vexed many of us for years: Are psychometrician’s human? You smirk, but who among us after attempting to converse with a psychometrician during a meeting break or conference reception hasn’t walked away thinking that they just engaged in a Turing Test – and not a very good one at that. Of course, in today’s emerging AI world, the real question of interest is not whether psychometricians are human, but the extent, if any, to which they must be. Not surprisingly, ultimately the answer leads to the question of what you mean by psychometrics. 

Pipe Dreams

“The USMNT will be good enough to compete in the World Cup.”

“Soccer will finally take off and become popular in the United States.”

“The Maine Democratic Party won’t shoot itself in the foot this election cycle.”

“Large-scale test results can be used to inform instruction.”

All of the above fit the classic definition of a pipe dream; that is, “an idea plan, or hope that is unrealistic, impractical, or nearly impossible to achieve.” The other critical component of each of those pipe dreams is that we are able to convince ourselves that it is achievable, repeatedly and often in the face of daunting evidence. Education policy, specifically policy related to assessment is rife with such pipe dreams. The questions I ponder this week, as we look to the future of assessment, is the extent to which pipe dreams are a necessary evil and when is it time to let go of them.

The Real World of Educational Measurement

Educational measurement begins in the real world. On that point there seems to be universal agreement. Where, however, does it end? Consensus on that question is not quite as strong. For a while now, I’ve had a nagging feeling that something was missing from our definition of educational measurement. Educational measurement has to end where it began; that is, in the real world.

To Those Burrs In Our Saddle

I truly enjoyed reading the many posts describing the amazing work showcased at NCME in LA; and the positive, uplifting experience that the conference was for everyone. But in this week’s post I want to acknowledge the contribution of those who take it upon themselves to poke, prod, and noodge at every presentation and in response to every post.  It takes a village and they are part of ours.

They Told Me There’d Be Consequences

The Olympics are over and it’s a blizzardy Monday morning. In other words, it’s a perfect time to peruse the preliminary program for the upcoming NCME annual meeting. Of course, every action has consequences. In this case, the consequence is a blog post about consequences. I’ll admit that I have no idea who John Ruskin is, but as I read through the program, I couldn’t help but think of these words of his, “What we think or what we know or what we believe is in the end of little consequence. The only thing of consequence is what we do.”

From Homer to Ho: Let’s Talk TACs

Two recent posts by Andrew Ho spurred my thinking about Technical Advisory Committees (TACs); specifically, the role that the committees and their members play in our field. Perhaps even more important than their role as advisors, problem solvers, sounding boards, psychometric therapists, and human guardrails, TAC members are storytellers, passing on through oral tradition the key tenets of our field.