Non-Additive Quantity Measurement Model

This work considers a model for measuring non-additive quantities, in particular a model for subjective measurement. The purpose of this work was to develop the measurement theory and form of a measurement model that uses the corrected S. Stevens measurement model.

A generalized structure was considered that included an empirical system, a mathematical system, and a homomorphism of the empirical system into a numerical system. The main shortcomings of classical measurement theories seem to be: 1) homomorphism does not display operations (in this case, one cannot speak of the meaningfulness of the model); and 2) there is no empirical measurement model that could confirm the existence of a homomorphism. To overcome the shortcomings of existing theories a definition of the measurement equation is given. As a result a measurement model is obtained that is free from the shortcomings of classical measurement theories. The model uses the corrected model of S. Stevens and the reflection principle of J. Barzilai.

The measurement model was tested using laws that were obtained empirically. Using the model it is shown that Fechnerʼs empirical law is equivalent to Stevensʼs empirical law. This means that the problem which has attracted attention of many researchers for almost a century, has been solved.

A numerical example demonstrates the possibilities of the proposed measurement model. It is shown that the model can be used for extended analysis of expert assessments.

1. Raghavendra N.V., Krishnamurthy L. Engineering metrology and measurements. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2013, 676 р.

2. Maul A., Irribarra D.T., Wilson M. On the philosophical foundations of psychological measurement. Measurement, 2016, vol. 79, pp. 311–320. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.11.001

3. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology-JCGM. JCGM 200: 2008. International vocabulary of metrology: basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 2008.

4. Wichmann F.A., Jäkel F., Wixted J. Methods in psychophysics. Stevens handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, 2018, vol. 5, pp. 265–306.

5. Makransky G., Terkildsen T.S., Mayer R.E. Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect. Learning and Instruction, 2019, vol. 61, pp. 23–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.001

6. Luce R.D., Suppes P., Krantz D.H. Foundations of measurement: representation, axiomatization, and invariance. Courier Corporation, 2007, vol. 3.

7. Cecconi P., Franceschini F., Galetto M. Measurements, evaluations and preferences: a scheme of classification according to the representational theory. Measurement, 2006, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2005.10.012

8. Michell J. Representational measurement theory: Is its number up? Theory & Psychology, 2021, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 3–23. DOI: 10.1177/0959354320930817

9. Barzilai J. Preference function modelling: the mathematical foundations of decision theory. Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis, 2010, pp. 57–86.

10. Barzilai J. Demand theory is founded on errors. Real-World Economic Review, 2014, iss. 68, pp. 62–65.

11. Romanchak V.M. [Model of Rating of NonPhysical Quantity]. Sistemnyj analiz i prikladnaya informatika [System analysis and applied information science], 2017, no. 4, pp. 39–44 (in Russian). DOI: 10.21122/2309-4923-2017-4-39-44

12. Romanchak V.M. [Subjective measurements (rating theory)]. ZHurnal Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psihologiya [Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology], 2020, no. 3, pp. 87–98 (in Russian).

13. Michell J. The Rasch paradox, conjoint measurement, and psychometrics: Response to Humphry and Sijtsma. Theory & Psychology, 2014, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 111–123. DOI: 10.1177/0959354313517524

14. Michell J. “The constantly recurring argument”: Inferring quantity from order. Theory & Psychology, 2012, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 255–271. DOI: 10.1177/0959354311434656

15. Michell J. Constructs, inferences, and mental measurement. New Ideas in Psychology, 2013, vol. 31, iss. 1, pp. 13–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.004

16. Dummit D.S., Foote R.M. Abstract algebra. Hoboken: Wiley Publ., 2004, vol. 3.

17. Briggs D.C. Interpreting and visualizing the unit of measurement in the Rasch Model. Measurement, 2019, vol. 146, pp. 961–971. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.07.035

18. Lubashevsky I. Psychophysical laws as reflection of mental space properties. Phys. Life Rev., 2019, vol. 31, pp. 276–303.