Andrich David
School of Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Med Care. 2004 Jan;42(1 Suppl):I7-16. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000103528.48582.7c.
The development of Rasch models in educational and psychologic measurement in the 1960s coincided with the introduction of other similar models, now described as models of item response theory (IRT). The application of IRT models has now extended to other social sciences, including health. Originally, there was substantial controversy between those who saw Rasch models as simply special cases of IRT models and those who saw them as essentially different. Because these different perspectives continue to manifest themselves in various ways, it seems relevant to understand the source of the original controversy. This paper attempts to do so by invoking Kuhn's studies in the history and philosophy of science at 3 levels. First, it suggests that the 2 perspectives reflect Kuhn's concept of legitimate, incompatible paradigms in which controversy is a typical manifestation. Second, because Kuhn recognizes individual histories in the development of paradigms, Rasch's own shift in perspective is summarized. Third, because proponents of the Rasch models emphasize the models' compatibility with fundamental measurement found in physical science, an analogy is made between how Kuhn explains the role of measurement in the physical sciences and how proponents of Rasch models explain the role of these models in the social sciences. In particular, these roles cannot be gleaned from textbooks in science and statistics, respectively.
20世纪60年代，教育和心理测量领域中拉施模型的发展与其他类似模型的引入同时出现，这些模型现在被称为项目反应理论（IRT）模型。IRT模型的应用现已扩展到包括健康领域在内的其他社会科学领域。最初，将拉施模型视为IRT模型简单特例的人与认为它们本质上不同的人之间存在大量争议。由于这些不同观点仍以各种方式表现出来，了解最初争议的根源似乎很有必要。本文试图通过在三个层面引用库恩在科学史和科学哲学方面的研究来做到这一点。首先，它表明这两种观点反映了库恩关于合理的、不相容范式的概念，在这种范式中，争议是一种典型表现。其次，由于库恩认识到范式发展中的个人历史，总结了拉施自己观点的转变。第三，由于拉施模型的支持者强调这些模型与物理科学中基本测量的兼容性，在库恩如何解释测量在物理科学中的作用与拉施模型的支持者如何解释这些模型在社会科学中的作用之间进行了类比。特别是，这些作用分别无法从科学教科书和统计学教科书中找到。
