Page 76 - The Importance of Common Metrics for Advacing Social Science Theory and Research

The Importance of Common Metrics for Advancing Social Science Theory and Research: A Workshop Summary
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13034.html

64 THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMON METRICS

different from what is currently in the books. This culture works against
standardization and common metrics. It also is not clear what the form of a
standard measure should be (e.g., global, domain-specific), nor what quality
of self-regulation matters most (e.g., capacity, style, capability). The focus
has been on process rather than classification.
He summarized what he considered features of a desirable metric. It
must be intuitive, that is, phrased in terms that have inherent meaning. The
units should have basis in commonly accepted reality, so that change can be
expressed in meaningful units. And finally, the metric must have the same
meaning across the range of characteristics on which comparisons would
be made (e.g., preschool to adulthood). He saw a number of advantages to
standardization: (1) the results across studies and research programs could
be compared, (2) empirical evidence would more readily and quickly ac-
cumulate, (3) the construct might be more likely to be assessed or discussed
routinely outside the academy, thus drawing social psychologists more into
discussions of social issues and into informing policy development and
evaluation.
Hoyle recognized that there are many reasons why standardization may
not be a good idea at a particular time. When no measure is a candidate
for widespread use, the use of multiple measures can help to triangulate a
construct and test the robustness of effects across operational definitions.
He also appreciated the benefits of mid-range models, that is, models that
spring up for different reasons and are not really trying to serve as a com-
prehensive explanation for self-regulation. He feared that standardization
might thwart this, because it would be unlikely that a single measure would
map onto and satisfy the needs of every given approach to thinking about
the construct. A standardized approach might also shift examination away
from process, which he thought would be a mistake at this point in the his-
tory of the construct. As evidence accumulates, models can be integrated,
trimmed, and simplified.
Hoyle drew a number of lessons from his review of self-regulation
measures:

• Standardization does not seem necessary for a research literature
to thrive or for research funding.
• Without convergence on a common model or set of prominent fea-
tures of the construct, there can be no convergence on a common
metric.
• Pressure to standardize measurement at this time would stymie
research on process, continued refinement of the construct, and
operational definitions.
• Without standardization or a common metric, the construct rarely
enters into discussions of social issues and social policy.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.