Concepts, Measures, and Measuring Well

Abstract

Measurement theorists agree that one has measured well when one’s measurement scheme faithfully represents the concept under investigation. Yet, the conventional wisdom on “measurement validation” pays surprisingly little attention to conceptual meaning and instead emphasizes measurement error and the pursuit of true scores. Researchers are advised to adopt an empiricist stance; treat data as objective facts; and confer validity through predictive correlations. This article offers an alternative outlook on ascertaining goodness in measurement. First, researchers must measure a concept’s dimensional expanse. Second, they must contextualize their measures to ensure concept–measure congruence and categorial pertinence. Third, this approach hinges on dialogue among subject matter experts to craft disciplinary measurement norms. The article contrasts these dueling approaches through an extended example of how scholars measure the concept state capacity. Overall, this article argues that social scientists must reconceive what it means to have measured well.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.