Any basis for comparison, such as a standard, is subject to adjustment. Length of a discuss throw can be measured easily, so we consider that 'objective.' The winning discus throw at the 1896 Olympics was roughly one third of the winning throw in 2000. If you call this winning toss a 'standard of comparison,' then today's high school kids were the equal of Olympic competitors in 1896.
If you define a standard for figure skating performance, has that not changed in the last 100 years? Is it reasonably 'objective'?
I have run across references to 'adjustments' in IQ tests, so that the mean and stdev remain at 100, 16, respectively. If this is so, then the research reports involving such tests should reference which IQ test was used, and perhaps a comparison of the mean difference in scores expected between them.
the details of calibration for even a tape measure to mark the length of a discus throw can get quite complex. Why should a less clear measurement, such as IQ, be any different?
Cheers, Jay
Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
It is partly subjective, but all of the "old" IQ tests,
produced before the introduction of the normal distribution,
have IQs ranging well over 160, including estimates of more
than 200. It was admitted that it was hard to measure at
this level, but this does not mean that scores above 130
should not be reported.
Important questions: what does an [adult] IQ of 200 mean? Is there any reason to suppose that the scale is interval? And how does somebody with an IQ of (say) 130 develop a test for it?
This sounds like Hannibal Lecter about to start reminiscing about questionnaires, liver, and fava beans, but there is a very real
problem. One wonders how the _dan_ system in (say) karate was set up.
Presumably in the centuries since karate was invented there have been masters greater than those who first codified the rankings; can this
be recognized, or do standards improve over the years to keep the tenth _dan_ level at "as good as anybody's ever been?"
-Robert Dawson . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
-- Jay Warner Principal Scientist Warner Consulting, Inc. 4444 North Green Bay Road Racine, WI 53404-1216 USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100 FAX: (262) 681-1133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
. . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
