Annotated references

Ben Wilbrink

Measurement in this page is broadly conceived. See the special page on validity for the special position of achievement tests as 'measurement instruments.' John Roche's (1998) The mathematics of measurement will undoubtedly be of much use, as will Denny Borsboom's (2003) work on measurement issues in psychology. At the start of the inventory my feeling is that I do not understand the least about the concept of measurement, strange as it may seem because almost all of the books and articles to be mentioned here are part of my own library. Regrettable I sold the Krantz et al. volume I on measurement recently to someone who needed that text on a daily basis. Deep problems are involved in the concept, also in practical issues regarding achievement testing.


Most people think achievement tests are instruments that 'measure' the level of mastery of student a and b, or the difference in their mastery of course content. What do you think: is there a difference that gets 'measured' here? No? Then why does everybody believe this crap? Yes? Mail me your argument, and I will publish it here.

The problem here, of course, is that a mastery of 70% - let us say as defined on the domain of test items this particular test has been drawn from - is in no way the same kind of attribute as being 186 cm long. Whatever instrument you use to measure this height, it will give 186 cm plus or minus a small observation error. Not so with every reasonable number of items from the domain you might wish to use to 'measure' your own mastery: the results will show a bewildering variety. A statistician might tell you there is some order in the observations you make, because you are in fact using a binomial process in your measuring procedure.

Now there is this strange habit among psychometricians, the people who like to tell you what to believe about your test results, that the variability in fact is a lot of 'observational error' around the true - but unknown - mastery of yours. These people must be crazy: you have answered a lot of these test items, and you have seen that they are perfectly true to the course content: they are perfectly valid in the sense Borsboom, Mellenbergh and Van Heerden (2004) define the concept of validity. Therefore, you think, the variability in testscores must be 'true variability,' not 'error variability.'

The psychometrician will tell you that your proposal sounds interesting, but this philosophy will not make the slightest difference to the achievement testing business. Now, is he or she right in thinking so? I don't think so. If every item is a valid item, which it should be, then why would it be a good idea to count the number of items answered correctly? The presumption is that mastery is a kind of quantitative concept. If you care to read the literature about what it is to truly get to master mathematics, statistics, physics, biology, etcetera, you will more often than not find that this is about qualities, not quantities. There is a big difference between the two concepts. Reasoning along the quality line, it is not the number of items right, but having at least one item right. At least once having run this particular distance in the school's best time ever does qualify you as a master runner, isn't it? Think about it. Following this idea up might liberate education from the thick blanket of achievement tests that is suffocating it.

Mail me your reaction, or suggestions to underpin the idea with some good arguments, from philosophy, empirical research, whatever. Read the education pages I am assembling for physics and a number of other disciplines.

Denny Borsboom (2003). Conceptual issues in psychological measurement. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.

Denny Borsboom (2005). Measuring the Mind. Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge Uiversity Press site

Denny Borsboom, Gideon J. Mellenbergh and Jaap van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071. pdf

Ellen Condliffe Lagemann (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. University of Chicago Press. site

Joel Michell (1999). Measurement in psychology. A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press. questia

John Rawls (2001). Justice as fairness. A restatement. Belknap Harvard University Press.

John J. Roche (1998). The mathematics of measurement. A critical history. London: Athlone.

Measurement fundamentals

R. Duncan Luce and John W. Tukey (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1-27. pdf

R. Duncan Luce and Patrick Suppes (1974). Theory of measurement. Encyclopedia Britannica. pdf

Louis Narens and R. Duncan Luce (1976). The algebra of measurement. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 8, 197-233. pdf

R. Duncan Luce (1978). Conjoint measurement: A brief survey. pdf

R. Duncan Luce (1978). A mathematician as psychologist. pdf

R. Duncan Luce (1979). Suppes' controbutions to the theory of measurement. In R. J. Bogdan Patrick Suppes. Reidel. pdf

R. Duncan Luce and Louis Narens (1981). Axiomatic measurement theory. SIA-AMS Proceedings vol 13. pdf

R. Duncan Luce and Louis Narens (1983). Symmetry, scale types, and generalizations of classical physical measurement. pdf

R. Duncan Luce (1985). Mathematical modeling of perceptual, learning, and cognitive processes. pdf~

R. Duncan Luce and Louis Narens (1986). Measurement: The theory of numerical assignments. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 166-180. pdf

R. Duncan Luce and Louis Narens (1987). Measurement scales on the continuum. Science, 236, 1527-1532. pdf

R. Duncan Luce (1988). Goals, achievements, and limitations of modern fundamental measurement theory. In H. H. Bock Classification and related methods of data analysis. Elsevier. pdf

R. Duncan Luce and Louis Narens (submitted as of 2007). Theory of measurement. In L. Blume and S. N. Durlauf (Eds) Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. pdf

Louis Narens and R. Duncan Luce (submitted as of 2007). Meaningfulness and invariance. In L. Blume and S. N. Durlauf (Eds) Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. pdf

Patrick Suppes (2002). Representation and invariance of scientific structures. MIT Press. isbn 1575863332

D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky (1971/2007). Foundations of Measurement. Volume I: Additive and Polynomial Representations. Dover (reprint appearing January 30, 2007).

P. Suppes, R. D. Luce, D. H. Krantz and A. Tversky (2007). Foundations of Measurement Volume II: Geometrical, Threshold, and Probabilistic Representations. Dover (reprint appearing January 30, 2007). Reviewed by George W. Furnas, APM, 15, 103-105

P. Suppes, R. D. Luce, D. H. Krantz and A. Tversky (2007). Foundations of Measurement Volume III: Representation, Axiomatization, and Invariance. Dover (reprint appearing January 30, 2007). Revieuwed by F. Gregory Ashby in APM 15, 105-108.

Norman Robert Campbell (1920/1957). Foundations of science. The philosophy of theory and experiment. Dover.

P. W. Bridgman (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan

Joel Michell (1990). An introduction to the logic of psychological measurement. Erlbaum. questia

At once scientific and psychologic. Joel Michell (1999). Measurement in psychology. A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press. questia

R. Duncan Luce (2000). Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement- Theoretical, and Experimental Approaches. Erlbaum. questia

William P. Fisher, Jr., and Benjamin D. Wright (Eds) (1994). Applications of Probabilistic Conjoint Measurement. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 559-664.

Judea Pearl (2000). Causality. Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. html

William P. Fisher, Jr. (2001). Invariant Thinking vs. Invariant Measurement. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 14, 778-81. html

David J. Bartholomew (Ed.) (2006). Measurement. SAGE. 4-volume set. contents

Thom G. G. Bezembinder (1970). Van rangorde naar continuum. Een verhandeling over datastructuren in de psychologie. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Cartwright, Nancy (1999). The dappled world. A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. fil>

Patrick Suppes (1951). A set of independent axioms for extensive quatities. Portugaliae Mathematica, 10, 163-172. Reprinted in Suppes (1969), 36-45. pdf

Patrick Suppes and Dana Scott (1958). Foundational aspects of theories of measurement. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23, 113-128. Reprinted in Suppes (1969), 46-64. pdf

Andersen, E.B. (1973). Conditional inference and models for measuring. Copenhagen: Mentalhygiejnisk Forlag. (referenced in Eggen's 2004 dissertation) [I have not yet seen this one, not in library Univ. Leiden]

Gerhard H. Fischer (2000). Applying the Postulate of Specific Objectivity to the Measurement of Treatment Effects in Clinical Psychology. Open and Distance Learning. html

Mathematics and the physical sciences

Hasok Chang (2004/2007). Inventing temperature. Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press.

Luther, R. Luther & K. Ostwald (1910). Ostwald-Luther Hand- und Hülfsbuch zur Ausführung physiko-chemischer Messungen. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelann. 3rd edition

David Z. Albert (1992). Quantum mechanics and experience. Harvard University Press.

Max Jammer (1989). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. American Institute of Physics.

  • The last chapter: ‘Two fundamental problems,‘ the second of which is ‘Observation and measurement.’ (p. 392-397)
  • Harold Jeffreys and Bertha Swirles Jeffreys (1946). Methods of mathematical physics. Cambridge at the University Press.

    Alexander Koyré (1968). Metaphysics and measurement. Essays in scientific revolution. London: Chapman & Hall.

    M. Norton Wise (Ed.) (1995). The values of precision. Princeton University Press. isbn 0691016011

    Wayne A. Fuller (1987). Measurement error models. New York: Wiley.

    J. Osinga en J. W. Maaskant (1982). Handboek elektronische meetinstrumenten. Deventer: Kluwer Technische Boeken.

    John D. Trimmer (1950). Response of Physical Systems. Wiley. questia

    Alex Hebra (2003). Measure for Measure: The Story of Imperial, Metric, and Other Units. Johns Hopkins. [I have not yet seen this one; UB Leiden 9669 F 10]

    John J. Roche (1998). The mathematics of measurement. A critical history. London: Athlone.

    Wayne A. Fuller (1987). Measurement error models. New York: Wiley.

    Philip Catton (). The most measured understanding of spacetime. doc

    C. Th. J. Alkemande, A. M. Hoogenboom en J. A. Smit (1979). Inleiding tot de fysische meetmethoden. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.

    Een en al degelijkheid: korte beschrijvingen van de theorie die onder de te meten (kenmerken etc. van de) verschijnselen ligt, de onderbouwing van de meetmethoden, de instrumentatie; alles op eenvoudig niveau behandeld, maar dat maakt het boek juist aantrekkelijk omdat het nu zo'n ongelooflijk breed spectrum - als ik dat zo mag zeggen - van meetbare verschijnselen bestrijkt. De toon is positivistisch, er is geen sprankje aandacht voor de ongetwijfeld enorme missers in de historie van de betreffende theorie en pogingen om tot valide en betrouwbare metingen te komen (wat bijvoorbeeld voor het meten van temperatuur versus warmte, hier in hetzelfde hoofdstuk behandeld, bepaald indrukwekkende inhoud zou hebben toegevoegd). Dus evenmin aandacht voor de zonden en vergissingen die in de dagelijkse natuurkundige en toegepaste praktijk ongetwijfeld routinematig worden gemaakt. En er moeten ongetwijfeld fysische onderwerpen zijn waar nog wordt geworsteld om er adequate meetmethoden of -technieken voor te ontwikkelen, maar ook daarover geen woord. Dat is jammer, omdat overigens de uiteenzetting door deze hoogleraren experimentele natuurkunde heel goed laat uitkomen dat meten geen sinecure is, dat er altijd de nodige haken en ogen aan procedures en technieken zitten, dat de keuze van geschikte methoden nog een lastige opgave is, en ga zo maar door. Voor een gedrags- of sociale wetenschapper die dit alles leest, toch wel indrukwekkend dat zelfs met materiaal dat niet terugpraat, meten zo lastig blijkt. Ook indrukwekkend is de mogelijkheid om bijna zo nauwkeurig te kunnen meten als men de instrumenten kan maken, gegeven de typische aard van het materiaal waaraan men meet: bijna perfect homogeen en dus bijna oneindig deelbaar als dat nodig is. Totdat moleculaire niveaus worden bereikt, natuurlijk, maar dan betreedt de meter een wereld van deels discrete verschijnselen - tellen maar!
    Schaalkenmerken lijken hier niet zo'n rol te spelen als zij in de psychologie doen: als de metingen maar nauwkeurig zijn, valt die schaal wel naar eigen hand te zetten mocht dat wenselijk zijn.

    Kathryn M. Olesko (1991). Physics as a calling. Discipline and practice in the Königsberg Seminar for Physics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    British Rheologists' Club (1949). The principles of rheological measurement. Report of General Conference, Bedford College, University of London, October 1946. Thomas Nelson and Sons.

    Osinga, J. Osinga & J. W. Maaskant (1982). Handboek elektronische meetinstrumenten. Kluwer Technische Boeken bv.

    Alkemade, C. Th. J. Alkemade, A. M. Hoogenboom & J. A. Smit (1979). Inleiding tot de fysische meetmethoden. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.

    Swart, Jacob Swart (1856, 3e). Handleiding voor de praktische zeevaartkunde. Amsterdam: Wed. G. Hulst van Keulen.

    Psychometrics past and present

    Robyn M. Dawes (1977). Suppose We Measured Height With Rating Scales Instead of Rulers. Applied Psychological Measurement 1, 267-273. abstract; pdf

    R. Duncan Luce (1967). Remarks on the theory of measurement and its relation to psychology. plus Discussion pdf

    R. Duncan Luce (1972). What sort of measurement is psychophysical measurement? American Psychologist, 96-106. pdf

    Edwin G. Boring (1961). The beginning and growth of measurement in psychology. Isis, 52, 238-257. Reprinted in Donald T. Campbell, Robert I. Watson ((1963). History, Psychology, and Science: Selected Papers by Edwin G. Boring (p. 140-158. Erlbaum. questia

    W. Grant Dahlstrom (1985). The Development of Psychological Testing. In Gregory A. Kimble and Kurt Schlesinger: Topics in the History of Psychology Vol. 2. Erlbaum. questia

    Marion S. Aftanas (1989). Theories, Models, and Standard Systems of Measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 325-338.abstract

    Harold Gulliksen (1986). Perspective on Educational Measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 109-132.abstract

    J. P. Guilford (1985). A Sixty-Year Perspective on Psychological I Measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 341-349.abstract

    Anne Anastasi (1985). Some Emerging Trends in Psychlolgical Measurement: A Fifty-Year Perspective. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 121-138.abstract

    Edward L. Thorndike (1904). Theory of mental and social measurements. New York: The Science Press.

    Rudolf Pintner (1923). Intelligence Testing: Methods and Results. Henry Holt. questia

    E. L. Thorndike, E. O. Bregman, M. V. Cobb, E. Woodyard and the Staff of the Division of Psychology of the Institute of Educational research of Teachers College, Columbia University (1925). The measurement of intelligence. New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications, Columbia University.

    George Rasch (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Expanded edition of the original 1960 text.

    Rogosa, D., D. Brandt, & M. Zimowski (1982). A Growth Curve Approach to the Measurement of Change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726-748.

    Isn't this a strange thing, trying to measure change? Is change an attribute one could measure? In what sense are Rogosa and others using the term 'measurement' here? Is this a move to not having to discuss the validity problem at all?

    George Engelhard, Jr. (1992). Historical Views of Invariance: Evidence from the Measurement Theories of Thorndike, Thurstone, and Rasch. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52, No. 2, 275-291

    As useful as standard tests and standard test theory have proven in large scale evaluation, selection, and placement problems, their focus on who is competent and how many items they can answer falls short when the goal is to improve individuals' competencies.

    Robert J. Mislevy (1993, p. 84). A framework for studying differences between multiple-choice and free-response test items. In Randy Elliot Bennett, William C. Ward (1993). Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment. Erlbaum. questia

    K. Bollen and R. Lennox (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.

    Mellenbergh, G. J. (1996). Measurement precision in test score and item response models. Psychological Methods, 1, 293-299.

    Benjamin D. Wright (nd). A history of social science measurement. Measurement for social science and education.

    Susan E. Embretson and Scott L. Hershberger (Eds) (1999). The new rules of measurement. What every psychologist and educator should know. Erlbaum. questia

    Wim J. van der Linden (2005). Linear models for optimal test design. Springer.

    Robert Lissitz (Ed.) (2006). Longitudinal and Value Added Models of Student Performance. JAM Press.

    Robert J. Mislevy and Geneva D. Haertel (2006). Implications of Evidence-Centered Design for Educational Testing. PADI Technical Report 17. pdf

    John B. Carroll (1987). New perspectives in the analysis of abilities. In Royce R. Ronning, Jane C. Conoley, John A. Glover, and Joseph C. Witt (Eds.) (1987). The influence of cognitive psychology on testing. Buros-Nebraska Symposium on Measurement and Testing. Volume 3 (pp. 267-84).

    Social and individual 'measurement'

    The fundamental problem in the social sciences is that people do not passively let their measures be taken.

    In education, the purpose is to manipulate measurement in the sense that pupils are supposed to grow in learning, their growth subsequently being 'measured.'

    A. Myrick Freeman, III (1993). The measurement of environmental and resource values. Theory and methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

    Measurement. Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. Contents of this journal: html. no free online articles.

    David F. Lohman and Thomas Rocklin (1993). Current Issues in the Assessment of Intelligence and Personality. To appear in D. H. Saklofske and M. Zeidner: International Handbook of Personality Intelligence. New York: Plenum. Please do not cite this draft without permission. pdf

    Zenderland, Leila (1998). Measuring minds. Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing. Cambridge University Press.

    Carleton W. Washburne (1922). Educational measurements as a key to individualizing instructions and promotions. Journal of Educational Research, 5, 195-206. [Does someone have a pdf for me?]

    Thomas M. Ostrom (1989). Interdependence of attitude theory and measurement. In Anthony R. Pratkanis, Steven J. Breckler and Anthony G. Greenwald: Attitude structure and function, p. 11-37. London: Erlbaum.

    Edward h. Haertel and Joan l. Herman (2005). A Historical Perspective on Validity Arguments for Accountability Testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104. Who can send me a pdf?

    Wim K. B. Hofstee (1981). Psychologische uitspraken over personen. Beoordeling/voorspelling/advies/test. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1981. [Psychological judgments of persons. Assessment/prediction/advice/test]

    Jean Piaget and Bärbel Inhelder

    Een interessante bron voor historische problemen met valide meten zijn studies naar onvergelijkbare theorieën (incommensurable cognitive conceptions). In onderstaand overzicht van Susan Carey vind je een aantal belangrijke bij elkaar: phlogiston-theorie, opvattingen van de Experimentalisten over hitte versus de latere uitsplitsing naar temperatuur en warmte, en onderzoek van Carey zelf naar het geheel eigen cognitieve systeem van kinderen voor 'zwaarte' van voorwerpen dat onvergelijkbaar is met de natuurkundige uitsplitsing naar dichtheid en massa.

    In die begrippenparen temperatuur-warmte, en dichtheid-massa is telkens de eerste een extensieve grootheid, de tweede een intensieve: bij samenvoegen tellen de extensieve bij elkaar op, terwijl de intensieve middelen.

    Susan Carey (1992). The origin and evolution of everyday concepts. In R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XV). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 89-128. pdf

    Ik kom bij deze literatuur terecht omdat ik er steeds sterker van overtuigd raak dat gezond-verstand-theorieën een belangrijke (belemmerende) rol in het onderwijs spelen, en dat er daarom didactieken nodig zijn die de student in staat stellen een ontwikkelingsslag te maken van de eigen intuitieve theorie naar de bedoelde tekstboek-theorie. Voor het natuurkunde-onderwijs zijn er op dat punt waarschinjlijk al belangrijke vorderingen te melden, op andere gebieden minder of in het geheel niet. Om nog maar te zwijgen van de ramp van competentiegericht leren dat iedere hoop op een sterke didactiek doet vervliegen.

    Ik ben dus niet alleen op zoek naar heldere beschrijvingen van die gezond-verstand-theorieën, maar ook naar theorie en experimenten op het relevante gebied van 'conceptual change' (dat heel dicht ligt bij belangrijke onderwerpen uit de wetenschapsgeschiedenis en -filofosie, zoals die rond paradigmawisselingen). zie meno.htm.

    Dat alles is nodig om een ontwerptechnologie voor toetsvragen te kunnen ontwikkelen, zoals je al zult hebben vermoed.

    Het artikel van Carey geeft voldoende ingangen tot de literatuur.

    Educational 'measurement'

    I will narrow this subject down to achievement tests, whether standardized or teacher-made. In a separate page I will collect some definitions of testing from the literature. A primary question, then, is that of the significance of the 'educational' here. Jerome Popp (1998) provides some answers in an attractively adequate and short book. He does, however, not expand his exposition to measurement in education as well.

    Jerome A. Popp (1998). Naturalizing philosophy of education. John Dewey in the Postanalytic Period. Southern Illinois University Press.

    Paul Davis Chapman (1988). Schools as sorters. Lewis M. Terman, Applied Psychology, and the Intelligence Testing Movement, 1890-1930. New York: New York University Press.

    E. F. Lindquist (Ed.) (1951). Educational measurement. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

    Robert Ladd Thorndike (1971). Educational Measurement. Second edition. Washington: American Council on Education.

    Robert L. Linn (Ed.) (1989). Educational measurement. Third edition. New York: American Council on Education / Macmillan.

    On validity, see validity.htm

    Measurement histories

    Measuring length and weight such as we are used to do, is a relatively new concept in science, with the exception of special sciences such as astronomy, or geometry. Until the eighteenth century the Greek tradition of comparing proportions was the technique used. See Roche (1998), Murdoch (1963). It is quite understandable why that should be so. In astronomy it comes naturally to, for example, treat the distance from the Earth to the Sun as a standard distance, while in geometry the technique to use one known length only, and then use triangulation to determine all other lengths, effectively makes the original length a kind of standard length [I have yet to check the literature how these things exactly have been done]. The Greek tradition of using proportions obviates the need to standardize lengths, times, etcetera; no effort was expended in standardizing, until in the eigtheenth century, and the French Revolution offering the opportunity to enforce national standards in the economy at large. In particular, in the Greek tradition, it was highly unusual 'measure' entities by assigning numbers to them according to some procedure. In that tradition, characteristics were compared the way weights are compared using a balance; circles are compared using the square of their diameter instead of our modern πr2 (Murdoch, p. 262: "Circles are to one another as the squares on the diameters"). It is, therefore, quite amazing to see how fast the Western public already in the early years of the twentieth century became brainwashed into the idea that there is such a thing as one's personal intelligence that can be measured by testing it, and assigning a number to it (a confidence interval, but that's a nuance lost on lay persons being 'measured.').


    "That weights were used in the early history of mankind is shown by the fact that that the equal-arm balance can be traced back to the year 5000 B.C. 'Weights' are also mentioned in the Bible. In Deuteronomy, chapter 25, verse 13, we read: 'You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small .... a full and just weight you shall have.' Or in Proverbs, chapter 11, verse 1, it is said: 'A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.'"

    Jammer, 2000, p. 7-8.

    Max Jammer (2000). Concepts of mass in contemporary physics and philosophy. Princeton University Press.

    John J. Roche (1998). The mathematics of measurement. A critical history. London: Athlone. Springer. isbn 0387915818

    John E. Murdoch (1963). The medieval language of proportions: Elements of the interaction with Greek foundations and the development of new mathematical techniques. In A. C. Crombie: Scientific change. Historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical conditions for scientific discovery and technical invention, from antiquity to present. London: Heinemann. p. 237-271.

    Stephen Jay Gould (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

    Witold Kula (1986). Measures and men. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Zevenboom, K. M. C. Zevenboom (1959). Bijdrage tot de kennis van de oude Amsterdamse graanmaat. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.

    Zevenboom, K. M. C. Zevenboom (1960). De bemoeiingen van het Instituut en de Akademie met het ijkwezen. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.

    G. J. C. Nipper (2004). 18 eeuwen meten en wegen in de Lage Landen. Walburg Pers. isbn 9057302802

    Ronald Edward Zupko (1990). Revolution in measurement: Western European weights and measures since the age of science. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

    The citations from Zupko should remind us that in education for centuries the unit of measurement of achievement was the error made, or nota falsa. It was simply accumulated across the semester, and students totals of notae falsae were carefully written down by the teacher as well as by the students themselves. (Wilbrink, 1997 html).

    Remark that the current habit of counting number correct in achievement tests, amounts to much the same as the medieval usage of counting things etcetera by number, disregarding quality, and surely it is not different in kind from the counting of errors made by pupils.

    M. Crosland (1972/1995). 'Nature' and measurement in eighteenth-century France. Reprinted in M. Crosland (1995). Studies in the culture of science in France and Britain since the enlightenment. Aldershot: Variorum. 277-309.

    Edmund Whittaker & G. Robinson (1924/1944) The calculus of observations. A treatise on numerical mathematics. Blackie and son limited.

    J. L. Heilbron (1979). Electricity in the 17th and 18th centuries. A study of early modern physics. University of California Press.

    J. L. Heilbron (1993). Weighing imponderables and other quantitative science around 1800. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Supplement to vol. 24, Part 1, 1-337. isbn 0918102170

    Robert W. Massof (2002). The Measurement of Vision Disability. Optometry & Vision Science, 79, 516-552. pdf 4Mb

    Joel Michell (1999). Measurement in psychology. A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press. G. E. R. Lloyd (1995). The Revolutions of Wisdom. Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science. University of California Press. eScholarship

    Not mentioned, read ....

    This is my waste basket for, for example, articles I have not been able to collect, except their abstract.

    William P. Fisher, Jr. (2003)

    William P. Fisher, Jr. (2003)

    William P. Fisher, Jr. (2003) Objectivity in psychosocial measurement: what, why, how.

    J. P. Holman (1984 4t) Experimental methods for engineers. McGraw-Hill. sbn 0070296138

    Good demonstration of the special character of measurment in the physical sciences: objects etcetera do not anticipate, get punished or rewarded. Therefore: this kind of measurement is not a good model for achievement testing.

    A. W. Richeson (1966). English land measuring to 1800: Instruments and practice. The Society for the History of Technology / The M.I.T. Press. lccc 66-21357

    Alex Hebra (2003). Measure for measure. The story of imperial, metric, and other units. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Edwin Danson (2006). Weighing the world. The quest to measure the earth. Oxford University Press. isbn 0195181697 info

    Herz, Norbert Herz (1905). Geodäsie. Eine Darstellung der Methoden für die Terrainaufnahme, Landvermessung und Erdmessung. Mit einem Anhange: Anleitung zu astronomischen, geodätischen und kartographischen Arbeiten auf Forschungsreisen. Leipzig und Wien: Deuticke.

    M. de Haas (1919 4e). Practische oefeningen in natuurkunde voor aanstaande technologen. Delft: Waltman.

    W. S. B. Woolhouse (18907/1979). Historical measures, weights, calendars & moneys of all nations. And an analysis of the Christian, Hebrew and Muhammadan calendars (with tables up to 2000 A.D.). Chicago: Ares. isbn 0890052816 <

    W. Kula (1986). >b>Measures and men. Princeton University Press. isbn 0691054460 info

    M. Aimé Witz (1883). Cours de manipulations de physique, préparatoire a la licence. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. online

    Donald Laming (1997). The measurement of sensation. Oxford University Press. isbn 0198523424 info

    Het gaat hier om subjectieve schattingen van de sterkte van prikkels etc. Dat blijkt dus een een nogal hectisch onderzoekthema te zijn, anders dan Stevens' in zijn 1957 studie suggereerde. Voor mij is het interessante dat het hier gaat om schattingen van prikkelsterkten, waarbij de fysische eigenschappen van die prikkels exact bekend zijn. Dat maakt het tot een interessant model voor subjectieve waarschijnlijkheden en subjectief nut, zoals in het algemene toetsmodel aan de orde. (Fechner - Stevens - sensory discrimination)

    A. F. P. H. Bloemen & A. D. Mesritz (1946). Electrotechniek. Electrische meetinstrumenten en meetschakelingen. Technische Uitgeverij H. Stam.

    Schermerhorn, Van Steenis & Wagenaar (1982). Landmeten en waterpassen. Leerboek voor het onderwijs en de praktijk.

    Alfred W. Crosby (1997). The measure of reality. Quantification and Western society, 1250-1600. Cambridge University Press. isbn 0521554276

    R. Rentenaar (Uitg.) (1971). Van Swindens vergelijkingstafels van lengtematen en landmaten. Centrum voor landbouwpublikaties en landbouwdocumenten. isbn 9022003523

    H. K. Roessingh (1969): Gelderse landmaten in de 17e en 18e eeuw. 53-98 in Bijdragen en Mededelingen van het Historisch Genootschap. Wolters. deel 83, 1969. gebonden.

    Clark Blaise (2000). Time Lord. Sir Sandford Fleming and the Creation of Standard Time. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. isbn 029784136X

    Gerhard Dohrn-van Rossum (1996). History of the hour. Clocks and modern temporal orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Original: Die Geschichte der stunde: Uhren und modere Zeitordnungen. Munchen: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1992.] isbn 0226155102

    J. M. Verhoeff (1983). De oude Nederlandse maten en gewichten. Meertens-Instituut. isbn 907038907X

    John P. A. Ioannidis (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine open access

    January 10, 2016 \ contact ben apenstaartje

    Valid HTML 4.01!