Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them

In this article, we define questionable measurement practices (QMPs) as decisions researchers make that raise doubts about the validity of the measures, and ultimately the validity of study conclusions. Doubts arise for a host of reasons, including a lack of transparency, ignorance, negligence, or misrepresentation of the evidence. We describe the scope of the problem and focus on how transparency is a part of the solution. A lack of measurement transparency makes it impossible to evaluate potential threats to internal, external, statistical-conclusion, and construct validity. We demonstrate that psychology is plagued by a measurement schmeasurement attitude: QMPs are common, hide a stunning source of researcher degrees of freedom, and pose a serious threat to cumulative psychological science, but are largely ignored. We address these challenges by providing a set of questions that researchers and consumers of scientific research can consider to identify and avoid QMPs. Transparent answers to these measurement questions promote rigorous research, allow for thorough evaluations of a study’s inferences, and are necessary for meaningful replication studies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2515245920952393

 

We may have a few things to say on the matter. Would be interesting to see if those are genuine skeptics, or "shkeptics" like Ben Goldacre, whose skepticism stops at the limit of their beliefs.

I think this may be relevant to the whole MUS debacle, @dave30th. And by I mean I mean you could fill the entire month of May with examples of why that is. Of every year. For the incoming decade. To begin with. Chapter 1. Part 1. Of 99.

 

there are also Questionable Research practices (QRPs)

see https://www.s4me.info/threads/quest...search-psychologists-2017-agnoli-et-al.17508/

 

I read the article but didn't find it particularly useful.