Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39031300›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2024

Practical Implications of Sum Scores Being Psychometrics' Greatest Accomplishment.

Daniel McNeish

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A primer on intensive longitudinal psychometrics.Behavior research methods · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel McNeishDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA. dmcneish@asu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper reflects on some practical implications of the excellent treatment of sum scoring and classical test theory (CTT) by Sijtsma et al. (Psychometrika 89(1):84-117, 2024). I have no major disagreements about the content they present and found it to be an informative clarification of the properties and possible extensions of CTT. In this paper, I focus on whether sum scores-despite their mathematical justification-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies in psychology, education, and adjacent areas. First, I summarize recent reviews of psychometric practice in empirical studies, subsequent calls for greater psychometric transparency and validity, and how sum scores may or may not be positioned to adhere to such calls. Second, I consider limitations of sum scores for prediction, especially in the presence of common features like ordinal or Likert response scales, multidimensional constructs, and moderated or heterogeneous associations. Third, I review previous research outlining potential limitations of using sum scores as outcomes in subsequent analyses where rank ordering is not always sufficient to successfully characterize group differences or change over time. Fourth, I cover potential challenges for providing validity evidence for whether sum scores represent a single construct, particularly if one wishes to maintain minimal CTT assumptions. I conclude with thoughts about whether sum scores-even if mathematically justified-are positioned to improve psychometric practice in empirical studies.

Indexed as

PsychometricsHumansModels, StatisticalReproducibility of Resultsclassical test theorycomposite scoreCTTreporting practicessum scorestotal score

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.