Other Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Invariance in Measurement

摘要

Engelhard draws out the similarities and differences in Guttman's, Rasch's, and Mokken's perspectives on invariance in measurement. He provides a valuable model in evaluating the extent to which different measurement theories and methods serve as a basis for achieving the fundamental goals of quantification. The full extent of this point will become more apparent in light of the forthcoming publication of Andrich's (Andrich, 2008) new derivation of the rating scale model from Guttman subspaces, formally cementing the Rasch elaboration of Guttman scaling. Focusing on established perspectives on invariance, Engelhard leaves three points in the background: 1. the metaphysical status of invariance as the criterion hallmark of meaningful-ness and existence, and so of validity 2. the place of invariantly calibrated instruments as portable media through which research communities acquire common languages, common points of reference, and the magnified power of distributed cognition 3. the role of anomalous failures of invariance in prompting the search for explanations of consistent inconsistencies that might lead to discoveries of new variables.