Contributions of Psychometrics to Studies in Cognitive Neuropsychology
Main Article Content
Abstract
Although they have their own independent traditions, psychometrics and cognitive neuropsychology present various aspects that may be used in an interdisciplinary approach to widen knowledge in the psychology field. This paper aims to: 1. discuss how these two areas of knowledge might interact, 2. present contributions of psychometrics to studies in the field of cognitive neuropsychology, and 3. highlight advances in the field of cognitive neuropsychology using psychometric theories. This paper also discourses that neuropsychological assessment models are often based on convergent and criterion validity. However, new psychometrics trends point to the weakness of these models, and indicate the need for research related to the structure of scores, response processes, consequential validity, and, principally, the fit between theoretical models and their latent constructs. A reciprocal relation between psychometrics and cognitive neu ropsychology is important for the development of both these areas, as well as for psy cho logy in general.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright to articles published in The Journal Of Psychology: Theory and Practice belongs to the authors, who grant Mackenzie Presbyterian University the not exclusive rights to publish the content.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1986). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Ardilla, A., & Ostrosky-Solís, F. (1996). Diagnóstico del daño cerebral: enfoque neuropsicológico. Mexico: Editorial Trillas.
Bilder, R. M. (2011). Neuropsychology 3.0: Evidence-based science and practice. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 7-13.
Bolt, D. M., Cohen, A. S., & Wollack, J. A. (2002). Item parameter estimation under conditions of test speededness: Application of a mixture Rasch model with ordinal constraints. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 331-348. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2002.tb01146.x
Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425-440. doi: 10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6
Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Koons, H. H. (2007). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397-412. doi: 10.1177/0013164410379323
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
Coltheart, M. (2002). Cognitive neuropsychology. In J. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Third Edition - Volume 4: Methodology. John Wiley & Sons, pp 139-174.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 443-407). Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analyses. New York: Routledge.
Ellis, A.W., & Young, A.W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kreft, I. G. G., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Padilla, J. L., & Benítes, I. (2014). Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema, 26,136-144. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.259.
Primi, R., Muniz, M., & Nunes, C. H. S. S. (2009). Definições contemporâneas de validade de testes psicológicos. In C. S. Hutz (Ed.), Avanços e polêmicas em avaliação psicológica (pp. 243-265). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.
Russel, E. W., Russel, S. L. K. & Hill, B. D. (2005). The fundamental psychometric status of neurospychological batteries. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 785-794.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thompson, B. (1999). Five methodology errors in educational research: A pantheon of statistical significance and other faux pas. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (pp. 23-85). London: JAI Press Inc.
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426-432. doi:10.1037/a0022790.
Wood, G. M. O., Carvalho, M. R. S., Rothe-Neves, R., & Haase, V. G. (2001). Validação da bateria de avaliação da memória de trabalho. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 14(2), 305-316.
Zumbo, B. D., & Shear, B. R. (2011). The concept of validity and some novel validation methods. In Northeastern Educational Research Association (p. 56). Rocky Hill, CT.