Theory of Conjoint Measurement - Relation To The Scientific Definition of Measurement

Relation To The Scientific Definition of Measurement

Satisfaction of the conditions of conjoint measurement means that measurements of the levels of A and X can be expressed as either ratios between magnitudes or ratios between magnitude differences. It is most commonly interpreted as the latter, given that most behavioural scientists consider that their tests and surveys "measure" attributes on so-called "interval scales" (Kline 1998). That is, they believe tests do not identify absolute zero levels of psychological attributes.

Formally, if P, A and X form an additive conjoint structure, then there exist functions from A and X into the real numbers such that for a and b in A and x and y in X:

.

If and are two other real valued functions satisfying the above expression, there exist and real valued constants satisfying:

and .

That is, and are measurements of A and X unique up to affine transformation (i.e. each is an interval scale in Stevens’ (1946) parlance). The mathematical proof of this result is given in (Krantz et al. 1971, pp. 261–6).

This means that the levels of A and X are magnitude differences measured relative to some kind of unit difference. Each level of P is a difference between the levels of A and X. However, it is not clear from the literature as to how a unit could be defined within an additive conjoint context. van der Ven 1980 proposed a scaling method for conjoint structures but he also did not discuss the unit.

The theory of conjoint measurement, however, is not restricted to the quantification of differences. If each level of P is a product of a level of A and a level of X, then P is another different quantity whose measurement is expressed as a magnitude of A per unit magnitude of X. For example, A consists of masses and X consists of volumes, then P consists of densities measured as mass per unit of volume. In such cases, it would appear that one level of A and one level of X must be identified as a tentative unit prior to the application of conjoint measurement.

If each level of P is the sum of a level of A and a level of X, then P is the same quantity as A andX. For example, A and X are lengths so hence must be P. All three must therefore be expressed in the same unit. In such cases, it would appear that a level of either A or X must be tentatively identified as the unit. Hence it would seem that application of conjoint measurement requires some prior descriptive theory of the relevant natural system.

Read more about this topic:  Theory Of Conjoint Measurement

Famous quotes containing the words relation to the, relation to, relation, scientific, definition and/or measurement:

    We must get back into relation, vivid and nourishing relation to the cosmos and the universe. The way is through daily ritual, and is an affair of the individual and the household, a ritual of dawn and noon and sunset, the ritual of the kindling fire and pouring water, the ritual of the first breath, and the last.
    —D.H. (David Herbert)

    You must realize that I was suffering from love and I knew him as intimately as I knew my own image in a mirror. In other words, I knew him only in relation to myself.
    Angela Carter (1940–1992)

    There is a relation between the hours of our life and the centuries of time. As the air I breathe is drawn from the great repositories of nature, as the light on my book is yielded by a star a hundred millions of miles distant, as the poise of my body depends on the equilibrium of centrifugal and centripetal forces, so the hours should be instructed by the ages and the ages explained by the hours.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    It is not too much to say that next after the passion to learn there is no quality so indispensable to the successful prosecution of science as imagination. Find me a people whose early medicine is not mixed up with magic and incantations, and I will find you a people devoid of all scientific ability.
    Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)

    Scientific method is the way to truth, but it affords, even in
    principle, no unique definition of truth. Any so-called pragmatic
    definition of truth is doomed to failure equally.
    Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)

    That’s the great danger of sectarian opinions, they always accept the formulas of past events as useful for the measurement of future events and they never are, if you have high standards of accuracy.
    John Dos Passos (1896–1970)