Abstract
In this chapter I briefly describe four things I learned from Ben Wright.
The original version of this chapter was revised. An erratum to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67304-2_16
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
You can read the results of our efforts yourself in Chapter 4 of the NRC report (NRC, 2001).
- 2.
Typically these are teachers, or other people who have professional interests in testing but are not actual measurement specialists themselves.
- 3.
I had to use the search terms “‘Wright Map’ measurement”, as ‘Wright Map’ on its own resulted in lots of references to Frank Lloyd Wright.
References
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 508–600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Draney, K., & Wilson, M. (2009). Selecting cut scores with a composite of item types: The Construct Mapping procedure. In E. V. Smith & G. E. Stone (Eds.), Criterion-referenced testing: Practice analysis to score reporting using Rasch measurement (pp. 276–293). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Mislevy, R. J., & Verhelst, N. (1990). Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solution strategies. Psychometrika, 55, 195–215.
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessments. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pelligrino, J., Chudowsky, N., and Glaser, R. (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Wilson, M. (1984). A psychometric model of hierarchical development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Wilson, M. (1989). Saltus: A psychometric model of discontinuity in cognitive development. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 276–289.
Wilson, M. (2001, October). On choosing a model for measuring. Invited paper at the International Conference on Objective Measurement 3, Chicago, IL.
Wilson, M. (2003). On choosing a model for measuring. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(3), 1–22. Download: http://www.dgps.de/fachgruppen/methoden/mpr-online/ (Reprinted in: Smith, E.V., and Smith, R. M. (Eds.) (2004). Introduction to Rasch Measurement. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.)
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wilson, M. (2012). Responding to a challenge that learning progressions pose to measurement practice: Hypothesized links between dimensions of the outcome progression. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2000, May). Standard Mapping: A technique for setting standards and maintaining them over time. Paper in an invited symposium entitled “Models and analyses for combining and calibrating items of different types over time” at the International Conference on Measurement and Multivariate Analysis, Banff, Canada.
Wilson, M., & Draney, K. (2002). A technique for setting standards and maintaining them over time. In S. Nishisato, Y. Baba, H. Bozdogan, & K. Kanefugi (Eds.), Measurement and multivariate analysis (Proceedings of the International Conference on Measurement and Multivariate Analysis, Banff, Canada, May 12–14, 2000) (pp. 325–332). Tokyo: Springer.
Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 181–208.
Wright, B. D., Enos, M. M., Enos, M., & Linacre, J. M. (2001). Adventures in questionnaire design: Poetics, posters, and provocations. Chicago: MESA Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 8.1: The “Wright Map ”
Appendix 8.1: The “Wright Map ”
I had heard the term “item map” being sometimes used to describe the representation of items and persons on the same graph. I am not sure the origin of that term, nor of the idea. But I knew that, for many years, Ben Wright had championed this approach to interpreting the results of measurement analyses, and also that he had made significant contributions to that approach, including enhancements and adaptations such as kidmaps , fit maps, maps for polytomous items, etc. It seemed to me that, in fact, Ben had made his most significant contributions to measurement in the area of conceptualizing measures, and interpreting the results of measurement analyses, and that his central tool in doing so were these (many forms of) item maps. In addition, I knew of no one else who had made an equivalent contribution, especially not in terms of item mapping. Hence, I coined the term “Wright Map ” in honor of Ben Wright and his very deep contributions to measurement.
This was at about the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000. After that, I used the term in my class (EDUC 274A, “Measurement in Education and the Social Sciences I” at UC Berkeley ) to get used to the sound of it—the students seemed to find it quite a useful term. As I was at that time drafting the text of my book Constructing Measures (Wilson , 2005), it became embedded in the text. The first time I used the term in a formal presentation was at the International Conference on Measurement and Multivariate Analysis, Banff, Canada (Wilson & Draney, 2000). I also used it at the first ICOM conference in Chicago (Wilson , 2001): that is the first time Ben Wright heard it, as he was in the audience (he told me he was very moved, and flattered).
Some might be surprised that Ben didn’t invent the term himself, as he was thought far from modest in most matters. But I believe he was indeed quite modest in formal matters, and was delighted to hear his name being used in this way. As far as I know, the first time the term appeared in print was in the Proceedings from the Banff conference (Wilson & Draney, 2002). The second presentation was also published (Wilson , 2003), and a version of it is also included in my Constructing Measures book.
Generally, I have found that people have welcomed the term—no one has ever objected to it, in my hearing, though, of course, they might not do so directly to me. It seems it has gained some currency: I searched for it in GoogleFootnote 3 just the other day, and got 1180 hits. Not too bad for a technical term!
It may seem odd that in a memoir about Ben Wright there are so many references to my publications and so few (only one!) to Ben’s. In fact, this reflects the fact that most of what I learned from Ben was through personal interaction with him, and also that he has had such a strong influence on my academic career.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilson, M. (2017). Things I Learned from Ben. In: Wilson, M., Fisher, Jr., W. (eds) Psychological and Social Measurement. Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67304-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67304-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67303-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67304-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)