{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0163265306122449, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.215686274509804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Psychometrics is Datametrics: the Test is not Reliable

The present article responds to selected criticisms of some EPM editorial policies and Vacha-Haase’s “reliability generalization” meta-analytic methods. However, the treatment is more broadly a manifesto regarding the nature of score reliability and what are reasonable expectations for psychometric reporting practices in substantive inquiries. The consequences of misunderstandings of score reliability are explored. It is suggested that paradigmatic misconceptions regarding psychometric issues feed into a spiral of presumptions that measurement training is unnecessary for doctoral students, which then in turn further reinforces misunderstandings of score integrity issues.