Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:45:28.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Interaction of the Subject and the Experiment in the Matching Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ralph Swentzell  and
Alan H. Roberts
Ralph Swentzell
Affiliation:
New Mexico Highlands University
Alan H. Roberts
Affiliation:
New Mexico Highlands University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two types of matching designs, static and dynamic, are differentiated. While all matching designs are logically the same in terms of the probability model which determines chance level of performance, an attempt is made to demonstrate that there is an interaction between the tactics, strategies, and actual knowledge of S and the type of design used which will, in turn, lead to different results even when S's knowledge is held constant. It is suggested that analogous situations may exist within the framework of the traditional psychometric model.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1964 , pp. 87 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The work reported in this paper was supported by a National Science Foundation Undergraduate Research Participation Grant (NSF-G15797) to the senior author. The authors are indebted to Joel E. Greene for his advice and criticism.

References

Angell, G. W. and Troyer, M. E. A new self-scoring device for improving instruction. Sch. Soc., 1948, 67, 84–85.Google Scholar
Dudek, F. J. Determining “chance success” when a specific number of items are sorted into discrete categories. J. consult. Psychol., 1952, 16, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, D. W. The matching problem with multiple judges and objects. Psychol. Bull., 1961, 58, 80–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests, New York: Wiley, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, R. B. and Apostolakos, P. C. Methodology for the comparison of clinical and actuarial predictions. Psychol. Bull., 1959, 56, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, F. and Bush, R. R.. Selected quantitative techniques. In Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954, 289–334.Google Scholar
Pressey, S. L. A simple device which gives tests and scores and teaches. Sch. Soc., 1926, 23, 373–376.Google Scholar
Pressey, S. L. Development and appraisal of devices providing immediate automatic scoring of objective tests and concomitant self-instruction. J. Psychol., 1950, 29, 417–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, R. C. Card-guessing with information—a problem in probability. Amer. math. Mon., 1962, 69, 506–511.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. H. Chance frequency in matching problems when success or failure is reported after each matching operation. J. consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 233–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Secord, P. F. A note on the problem of homogeneity-heterogeneity in the use of the matching method in personality studies. Psychol. Bull., 1952, 49, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernon, P. E. The matching method applied to investigations of personality. Psychol. Bull., 1936, 33, 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, G. H., Fluckiger, F. A. and Tripp, C. A. A proposed variation of the matching technique. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, G. H., Fluckiger, F. A. and Tripp, C. A. The application of a new matching technique. J. proj. Tech., 1962, 26, 221–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed