Fixed Point in Psychological Measurement: Mathematical Constraints in Modern Psychology

• Aldo Antonio Pineda Palomino

  Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo. Chiclayo, Perú.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8986-9057

• Alexeis Alberto Ravello Joo Pontificia

  Universidad Católica del Perú, Perú.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4001-0142

• María Rosario Palomino Tarazona

  Universidad César Vallejo, Perú.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3833-7077

• Gisella Socorro Flores Mejía

  Universidad César Vallejo, Perú.

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1558-7022

The ordinal measurement scale, although it is one of the most widely used and accepted in psychological research, has important limitations that lead to question its effectiveness for the quantitative treatment of reality. The nature of the phenomena studied makes it impossible to establish purely numerical relationships in psychology. In view of this reality, the research analyzes these restrictions, focusing on the absence of the fixed point of reference, a fundamental concept in mathematics and physics, which has been transferred to the field of psychology and whose lack of ordinal data generates controversy. The methodology used is descriptive and documentary, based on an interdisciplinary approach. Among the main findings, it is emphasized that the absence of a fixed point of reference generates tensions among quantitative models, since they do not succeed in understanding the breadth of human subjectivity. Finally, a paradigm shift is proposed, which provokes a complementary vision, where the axiomatic is articulated with interpretative frameworks, considering the measurable and the non-measurable, elements that, in conjunction, define human nature, making measurement an inclusive, ethical and plural aspect.

Andrade, C. (2021). Z scores, standard scores, and composite test scores explained. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176211046525

Aristóteles (2020). Metafísica. Alicia Editions.

Bloem, J. (2022). How much does the cardinal treatment of ordinal variables matter? An empirical investigation. Political Analysis, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.55

Campbell, N. (1921). What is science?. London: Methuen & Co. ltd.

Campbell, N. (1928). An account of the principles of measurement and calculation. Logmans Green

Cantú, P. (2013). Geometry and measurement in Otto Hölder’s epistemology. Philosophia Scientiae, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.832

Clavijo, A. (2007). Lo psicológico como un evento. Universitas Psychologica, 6(3), 699-711.

Cliff, N. (1993). Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyzes to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494

Da Costa. E. (1921). Physics: the elements. Nature, 107(2699), 643–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/107643a0

Dedekind, R. (2014) ¿Qué son y para qué sirven los números?. Alianza Editorial.

Dinčić, M., Perić, Z., Denić, D., & Denić, B. (2023). Optimization of the fixed-point representation of measurement data for intelligent measurement systems. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2023.113037

Edmondson, D. (2005). Likert scales: A history. Proceedings of the Conference on Historical Analysis and Research in Marketing, 12, 127-133.

Fellmuth, B., & Gaiser, C. (2023). High-accuracy realization of temperature fixed and reference points. Review of Scientific Instruments, 94(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110125

Ferreirós, J. (1993). On the relations between Georg Cantor and Richard Dedekind. Historia Mathematica, 20(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1006/hmat.1993.1030

Haslbeck, J., Vermunt, J. K., & Waldorp, L. J. (2023). The impact of ordinal scales on Gaussian mixture recovery. Behavior Research Methods, 55(4). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01883-8

Holt, G. (2014). Asking questions, analysing answers: Relative importance revisited. Construction innovation, 14(1), 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-06-2012-0035

Jebb, A., Ng, V., & Tay, L. (2021). A review of key Likert scale development advances: 1995–2019. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637547

Kemp, S., & Grace, R. (2021). Using ordinal scales in psychology. Methods in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100054

Kiliç, A., Uysal, I., & Kalkan, B. (2021). An alternative to likert scale: Emoji. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.864336

Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Lawrence Erlbaum

Manjon, M. A., Revilla, M., y Weber, W. (2022). An overview of the scales’ characteristics for 10 well-established face-to-face social science surveys. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field (SMIF). https://doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2022-00009

Matheson, G. (2006). Intervals and ratios: the invariantive transformations of Stanley Smith Stevens. History of the Human Sciences, 19(3), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695106066542

Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490040

Michell, J., & Ernst, C. (1996). The axioms of quantity and the theory of measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1996.0023

Moscati, I. (2018). Stevens and the operational definition of measurement in psychology, 1935–1950. Measuring Utility. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199372768.003.0009

Müller-Stach, S. (2017). Richard Dedekind: style and influence. Mathematische Semesterberichte, 64(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00591-017-0195-2

Mumu, J., Tanujaya, B., Charitas, R., &, Prahmana, I. (2022). Likert scale in social sciences research: problems and difficulties. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.51709/19951272/Winter2022/7

Muñiz, J. (1998). La medición de lo psicológico. Psicothema, 10(1), 1-21

Philippi, C. (2021). On measurement scales: Neither ordinal nor interval? Philosophy of Science, 88(5). https://doi.org/10.1086/714873

Pietronilla, M., Agus, M., Kenneth, P., y Pessa, E. (2018). Psychometric methods: The need for new conceptual advances. Measurement, 117(1), 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.11.054

Pineda, A. (2024). Revisión de los principios de mensurabilidad aplicados a la psicología. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 30(2), 488-503. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v30i2.41926

Radu, M. (2003). A debate about the axiomatization of arithmetic: Otto Hölder against Robert Graßmann. Historia Mathematica, 30(3), 341–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0315-0860(02)00024-1

Recalde, L. (2009). Los axiomas de cantidad de Hölder y la fundamentación del continuo lineal. Educación e Historia. 17(2), 101-121.

Roberts, F. (1985). Measurement Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Saris, W., & Gallhofer, I. (2014). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research (2.ª ed.). Wiley Series In Survey Methodology. https://haqaa2.obsglob.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2014_Saris_Design-evaluation-and-analysis-of-questionnaires-for-survey-research.pdf

Saris, W., y Gallhofer, I. (2007). Estimation of the effects of measurement characteristics on the quality of survey questions. Survey Research Methods, 1(1), 29-43 Pages. https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2007.V1I1.49

Schnuerch, M., Haaf, J., Sarafoglou, A., & Rouder, J. (2022). Meaningful comparisons with ordinal-scale items. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.38594

Smith, G., Bolanowski, S. & Geschieder, G.(1993). Ratio scaling of psychological magnitude: in honor of the memory of S. S. Stevens. The Statistician, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2348125

Stevens, S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677

Teghtsoonian, R. (2015). Stevens, Stanley Smith (1906–73). En Teghtsoonian (Ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 453–456). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.61128-5

Wu, H., & Leung, S. (2017). Can Likert scales be treated as interval scales?—A simulation study. Journal of Social Service Research, 43(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2017.1329775

Zwislocki, J. (1973). Significance of S. S. Stevens’s contribution to science. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54(4), 858–859. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2143417

• PDF (Spanish)

Copyright (c) 2025 Encuentros. Revista de Ciencias Humanas, Teoría Social y Pensamiento Crítico

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.