2019/04/25 by Bruno D. Zumbo, Edward Kroc · 1 voice · 3 citations
Mathematics · Decision Sciences · Computer Science · #Advanced Statistical Methods and Models #Meta-analysis and systematic reviews #Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
paper · doi:10.1177/0013164419844305
openalex publication_date 2019/04/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
Chalmers recently published a critique of the use of ordinal [Formula: see text] proposed in Zumbo et al. as a measure of test reliability in certain research settings. In this response, we take up the task of refuting Chalmers’ critique. We identify three broad misconceptions that characterize Chalmers’ criticisms: (1) confusing assumptions with consequences of mathematical models, and confusing both with definitions, (2) confusion about the definitions and relevance of Stevens’ scales of measurement, and (3) a failure to recognize that a measurement for a true quantity is a choice, not an absolute. On dissection of these misconceptions, we argue that Chalmers’ critique of ordinal [Formula: see text] is unfounded.