Sophisticated Statistics Cannot Compensate for Method Effects If Quantifiable Structure Is Compromised.

Researchers rely on psychometric principles when trying to gain understanding of unobservable psychological phenomena disconfounded from the methods used. Psychometric models provide us with tools to support this endeavour, but they are agnostic to the meaning researchers intend to attribute to the data. We define method effects as resulting from actions which weaken the psychometric structure of measurement, and argue that solution to this confounding will ultimately rest on testing whether data collected fit a psychometric model based on a substantive theory, rather than a search for a model that best fits the data.

Are Creative People Better than Others at Recognizing Creative Work?

It is often assumed that people with high ability in a domain will be excellent raters of quality within that same domain. This assumption is an underlying principle of using raters for creativity tasks, as in the Consensual Assessment Technique. While several prior studies have examined expert-novice differences in ratings, none have examined whether experts' ability to identify the quality of a creative product is being driven more by their ability to identify high quality work, low quality work, or both.