Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
E D I T O R I A L Open Access
Measurement Instruments for the Social
Sciences
Beatrice Rammstedt
*
and Matthias Bluemke
Editorial
At a first glance, the emergence of a new scientific
journal in the ever-growing market of scientific jour-
nals may raise eyebrows. Would a new journal rather
aid a solution or contribute to the “replicability crisis”
recently acknowledged in some social scientific disci-
plines? Are there not already more scientific outlets
than anyone can ever follow? And do not we all have
enough items on our reading lists already? At a
second and closer look, it becomes clear that if, in
the past, effort had been devoted to developing
high-quality measurement instruments, it often went
unnoticed. Documenting such effort is not a typical
goal of journals focusing on substantive research, be-
cause measurement is just perceived to be a vehicle
to answer substantive questions. In addition, even if
an instrument was published, it was most often only
recognized and reused in its discipline of origin. A
transfer of knowledge among disciplines, even though they
aimed to study the same constructs, only seldom happens.
A slight imbalance then needs to be addressed; sub-
stantive questions can only be meaningfully answered
if measurement as such is sound. We reason that a
new interdisciplinary journal specifically devoted to
disseminating open measurement instruments freely,
across cultural and language barriers, while support-
ing open access, open data, and open methodology
can aid researchers around the globe and across many
disciplines.
Relevance of sound measurement
Measurement instruments are the central tools to ac-
quire sound and scientifically based knowledge and to
make theoretical progress in a variety of social scientific
disciplines. Across these disciplines, empirical re-
searchers rely on information that has to be collected in
an objective manner, in many cases, to be quantified and
statistically analyzed afterwards. Irrespective of different
underpinnings in test-theoretical terms, this requires at
least a standardized approach of collecting information
and integrating (often numerical) survey responses or
other participant data, before making inferences at
the construct level and quantifying individual differ-
ences. This process applies to various disciplines, re-
gardless whether the goal is to describe political
systems and societies, implement societal change, pre-
pare individual interventions, or predict economic
decision-making in the lab or in the field, to name a
few examples.
Regardless whether political surveys, personality as-
sessment, educational testing, changes in societal values,
or health screenings are concerned, the adequacy of in-
terpretations of measurement outcomes as well as the
correct tracking of trends in societies, the tools we use
are fundamental for obtaining meaningful measures.
They need to be objective and—ideally—transparent for
independent inspection and evaluation. Different re-
search purposes may prolong the parallel existence of
instruments measuring the same construct, yet after
some time, so one might hope, scientific evolution will
have helped some of the “best”measures to shine,
whereas others that appear to be weaker will have paled
in comparison.
Current challenges
According to our reading, the current state of measure-
ment in the social sciences is suboptimal in some
regards: (a) there is multiplicity of instruments in a
world full of diverse disciplines; (b) in some cases, the
instruments themselves, or existing translations, are not
available to the research community; and (c) despite the
need for brief measures or cross-cultural adaptations,
there is a lack of recognition for this kind of work (e.g.,
resulting in desk rejections due to the lack of originality),
leading to lower effort in this regard.
To elaborate, scientific disciplines exist next to each
other and continue to diversify, so a number of measure-
ment approaches compete and the same—or highly
related—constructs are being assessed by economists,
* Correspondence: beatrice.rammstedt@gesis.org
GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne, Mannheim, Germany
© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Rammstedt and Bluemke Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences
(2019) 2:4
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42409-018-0003-3
psychologists, or sociologists, albeit for different pur-
poses. Consequently, multiple measures for the same
construct exist, rendering comparisons—for instance,
across disciplines—difficult.
Furthermore, there is an unknown number of meas-
urement instruments hidden in file drawers, which is
probably true for each discipline. This refers to newly
developed instruments as well as to abbreviated mea-
sures (Rammstedt & Beierlein, 2014). Whereas long item
batteries are often not feasible in large-scale assessments
or general population surveys, selecting items in an ad
hoc manner is not wise either, yet some existing short
scales are hardly visible (Ziegler, Kemper, & Kruyen,
2014). Also, questionnaires that have been translated
to a foreign language, or adapted for a different
population, context, and culture, rarely find the atten-
tion and respect they deserve. The efforts in provid-
ing and testing them do not only contribute to
replicable science but to the only way that science
can shed light on human universals.
Unless a journal is devoted to assessment or measure-
ment instruments, the typical description of measure-
ment instruments is rather succinct. Often crucial
psychometric evidence on an instrument is missing (if
only for space constraints). Sometimes, even a sound
definition of the construct is lacking, not to mention the
intended uses, target population, and users of a meas-
urement tool (Ziegler, 2014). Sometimes relevant aspects
of a questionnaire are not disclosed (e.g., full item set,
item translations/adaptations, instructions, response
options, aggregation rules, measurement model). Not
surprisingly then, data and/or crucial statistical code
used for analyses might be missing, too. This current
practice can undermine a thorough investigation of the
quality of instruments. It definitely hampers attempts at
replicating the original research and conducting further
research on the instrument.
Yet even if all the information one seeks were
available, the comparability of many tools across cul-
tures and languages, or across subgroups in the same
population, might appear rather doubtful. We would
like to rest assured that bias does not distort the
comparability of measurement outcomes across
groups. Some researchers might devote attention to
developing cross-culturally valid items from the be-
ginning (e.g., by cognitive pretesting); others might
test (or not) for measurement equivalence at least in
retrospect (Thalmeyer & Saucier, 2014). Sadly, the
current practice is that measurement equivalence is
not considered often enough, even in cross-cultural
research where this topic should be ranking high on
the agenda (Boer, Hanke, & He, 2018). Accordingly,
researchers’conclusions do not always live up to
scrutiny.
Journal development
When we at GESIS-Leibniz-Institute for the Social
Sciences—pondered the launch of a new open access
journal—we discovered that the scientific community
was open to the idea of a new journal specifically de-
voted to Measurement Instruments in the Social Sciences
(MISS). We were encouraged in our view that there is a
fundamental need in the scientific community address-
ing the aforementioned challenges and that GESIS is
ideally suited for setting up an interdisciplinary journal,
for gathering an initial editorial board, and for helping
the fields to develop an integrated view on measure-
ment. It goes without saying that our newest addendum
to the journal list is not the only outlet to further the
cause of measurement in science. Each discipline has
established its own flagship.
Nonetheless, we have tried to achieve a combination
of features that uniquely characterize the new journal.
The open access journal functions as a platform to be
shared by various disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology,
education, political science, economics), and the journal
disseminates public measurement instruments intended
for scientific use across multiple languages and settings.
Though focusing predominantly on social surveys for
the general population, the instruments may also be
relevant for the study of individual differences and useful
for specific groups or in specific diagnostic contexts.
Submitting authors have to subscribe to high scientific,
open-science, and ethical standards (more information
can be found at the journal homepage: https://measure
mentinstrumentssocialscience.biomedcentral.com).
All submissions undergo double-blind peer review.
Six types of articles are acceptable for publication,
which may further evolve in the future (for details,
see the journal submission guidelines: https://
measurementinstrumentssocialscience.biomedcentral.com/
submission-guidelines):
1) New measurement instruments present an
instrument that may either be completely new or
offer a better version of existing measurement
approaches.
2) International adaptations of measurement
instruments present a tool (e.g., a questionnaire) in
different languages to foster the international
harmonization of measurement instruments.
3) Validation of measurement instruments presents
validation studies on established questionnaires or
tests, enhancing what has been known and tested
about their psychometric properties.
4) Advances in methodology portray best practice in
social-scientific measurement or describe recom-
mended changes in testing and analytical proce-
dures on the basis of scientific evidence.
Rammstedt and Bluemke Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences (2019) 2:4 Page 2 of 3
5) Test reviews focus on a standardized evaluation of a
measurement instrument’s characteristics and its
materials as well as current evidence of
psychometric quality in line with established test
criteria and guidelines (e.g., international test
commissions).
6) Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis
may occasionally be published. These critical assess-
ments of literature and data sources focus on a
topic that concerns the use and analysis of measure-
ment instruments in the social sciences. They
should emphasize quality indicators such as object-
ivity of tools, reliability estimates, construct validity,
factorial validity/measurement model, predictive
validity, or fairness/comparability/equivalence across
groups.
7) Meeting reports summarize the major themes of a
meeting, symposium, or workshop, focusing on the
key developments as well as new discoveries
relevant to measurement instruments, changes in
best practices regarding measurement and use of
measurement instruments, and the application of
recently gained knowledge in the social sciences.
Recommendations for authors
On the basis of the requests that our interdisciplinary
and international editorial board members have received
so far, the first three article types are about to become
the most frequent publication types appearing in Meas-
urement Instruments for the Social Sciences for a while.
If you feel that your approach does not fit one of the
recommended article types and structures, please be in
touch with the editors.
It should be evident that any progress in
measurement-related issues across the social sciences
will always be gradual and incremental. We appreciate
you contributing to this worthwhile endeavor by submit-
ting a manuscript or helping out with peer review. Start-
ing from 2018 through 2020, GESIS is sponsoring a
number of articles through a full waiver (further details
at https://measurementinstrumentssocialscience.biomed-
central.com/submission-guidelines/fees-and-funding).
Most of all, we hope to stimulate discussion across
fields. Next to submitting your work as a paper to MISS,
you can actively contribute to this enterprise by suggest-
ing future special issues or thematic series (also see
journal homepage).
Funding
Not applicable
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable
Authors’contributions
Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’sNote
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Received: 2 December 2018 Accepted: 12 December 2018
References
Boer, D., Hanke, K., & He, J. (2018). On detecting systematic measurement error in
cross-cultural research: a review and critical reflection on equivalence and
invariance tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 713–734.
Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of
personality assessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual
Differences, 35, 212–220.
Thalmayer, A. G., & Saucier, G. (2014). The questionnaire big six (QB6) in 26
nations: developing cross-culturally applicable big six, big five, and big two
inventories. European Journal of Personality, 28, 482–496.
Ziegler, M. (2014). Stop and state your intentions! Let’s not forget the ABC of test
construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 239–242.
Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales: five misunderstandings
and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 185–189.
Rammstedt and Bluemke Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences (2019) 2:4 Page 3 of 3
