Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Summary Measurement: The Role of Categories or Domains

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality

  • 1286 Accesses

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is on how the constant stream of information that a person experiences every day is summarized into units that are used to communicate or provide the basis for quantification. Two methods are described: those based on the person using cognitive processes to form categories of information and those that involve the investigator using statistical procedures to create domains. In addition, I describe how the content (modular or nonmodular) of these summary statements can vary and what it implies about the summary measure formed. Finally, I illustrate how differences in the content of a domain and the quality-of-life assessment used (generic or disease specific) contribute to the predictive ability of a quantitative assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Much of the research on category formation that I cite involves studies of objects and perceptual arrays. I recognize that while these studies may be quite relevant when the object of study is the qualitative assessment of a statue or painting, there is a risk when applying these studies to the more complex environment of quality-of-life assessment. However, I find this extension to be acceptable in most instances, especially if it stimulates the required research.

  2. 2.

    Ashby and Maddox (2005), like Estes, distinguish the terms categories and concepts, although they acknowledge that it is common for them to be used interchangeably. Thus, a category is defined as a collection of similar objects belonging to the same group, while a concept refers to a collection of more abstract entities, such as ideas. Again, the interchange of the terms category and concept is another demonstration of the fact that a person has the cognitive capability to make a concrete entity abstract and vice versa.

  3. 3.

    As expressed here, the difference between a category and a domain constraint is that the constraints are not made explicit when a category is formed, but they usually are (by an investigator) when a domain is formed.

  4. 4.

    These two memory systems do not refer to short- and long-term memory, both systems are long-term memory system, with short-term memory being an activated portion of the information held in long-term memory.

  5. 5.

    A number of authors have proposed different schemes for characterizing modular domains. Geary and Huffman (2002) propose that modules can be conceived of in terms of neural, perceptual, cognitive, and functional modules.

  6. 6.

    In Chap. 2, I described the process of how a conceptual metaphor is formed. I suggested that a structural mapping was occurring between the base and the target (Bowdle and Gentner 2005). In the context of the current discussion, I suggest that this mapping is, at first, a controlled process that can become automatic with continued exposure, as would be expected with a conceptual metaphor.

  7. 7.

    Hirschfeld and Gelman (1994) and others use the term “domain-specific” to refer to entities that are quite prescribed in terms of their neurological and psychological structure and function (e.g., vision). This term may be confusing, especially since I am using the term domain to refer to a wide range of types of domains. I have opted to use the term “modular” instead of “domain-specific”. However, the term modular also has a broad reference, but I don’t believe this should be as confusing as concurrently using the phrase domain-specific and domain. I will clarify the different usages of the terms when I discuss Fodor’s (1993) nine criteria for a module.

  8. 8.

    Fodor has written a more recent book on this topic published in 2000, but I will focus on the 1983 book and leave the issue of Fodor’s current thoughts for another time and place.

  9. 9.

    The phenomenon of “upregulation” is an excellent example of acquired modularity. This is so because a specific biologically-based event occurs which produces a change in a person’s pain sensitivity that did not exist prior to the event (i.e., it is acquired), and which represents a change in a particular modality (pain perception) that has a physiological basis.

  10. 10.

    Describing health status as “not being a domain of interest” does not mean that I am suggesting it not be measured. Just that it will be measured by the domains that make it up, which if I follow Patrick and Erickson’s (1993) recommendations would include symptoms, functional states, and health perceptions.

  11. 11.

    By “unique” measures, I mean measures that do not have to refer to other domains for their definition.

  12. 12.

    Whether and how the content of a domain can be organized into a dimension is a critical issue. This may occur statistically, as during an IRT analysis and the creation of a data bank, but may also involve the interaction between an investigator’s own cognitive processing and various statistical procedures (e.g., as when an investigator labels a factor following a factor analysis and orders the elements in the domain along a dimension). However, it is also possible that the entities within a domain spontaneously form a dimension. Thus, you can have a quality-of-life domain and have the dimension of goodness or badness of the qualitative entities within the domain. In fact, it can be argued that you can’t have a cognitive dimension without first grouping this information into a category, or a dimension with the domain.

  13. 13.

    The authors of the DSM system make clear that they are aware that the domains of their system contain arbitrary elements (American Psychiatric Association, 1994 to 2000; p. xxii).

  14. 14.

    Some would argue that the Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) movement is an example of domain formation gone wild, with practically any number of combinations of indicators included in a domain. Actually, PROs are an excellent example of domains that could benefit from the type of analysis being discussed in this chapter.

  15. 15.

    Although the criteria for defining a modular domain belong to Fodor as interpreted by Cain (2002), his general philosophical orientation of radical nativism has been criticized (Laurence and Margolis 2002).

Abbreviations

ADVS:

Activities of Daily Vision Scale (Manguione et al. 1992)

CAT:

Computer adaptive testing

CL:

Confidence limits

DSM:

Diagnostic and statistical manual (American Psychiatric Association 2000)

EQ-5D:

EuroQol group 5 dimensions (Brooks et al. 2003)

Generic:

Generic quality-of-life assessment

HADS:

Hospital Anxiety and Depressions Scale (Zigmond and Snaith 1983)

HRQWOL:

Health-related quality-of-life

IRT:

Item response theory

LogMAR:

Log of minimal angle of resolution

PROs:

Patient-reported outcomes

RSCL:

Rotterdam symptom checklist (De Haes et al. 1990)

SF-36:

Medical outcome study short form 36 (Ware and Sherbourne 1992)

SF-36 PFS:

Physical functioning items of the SF-36

SG:

Standard gamble utility measure

SG-VH:

Standard gamble-visual health

SIP:

Sickness Impact Scale (Bergner et al. 1981)

SVA:

Snellen visual acuity

SWB:

Subjective well-being

TyPE:

The TyPE specification assesses visual functioning in five dimensions: (1) distance vision; (2) near vision; (3) daytime driving; (4) nighttime driving; and (5) glare

VA:

Visual acuity

VF-14:

Visual functioning 14 items (Steinberg et al. 1994)

Vision-Specific:

Vision-specific HRQOL assessment

VR:

Verbal utility report

WHO/PBD VF20:

World Health Organization Standards for Vision 2003

WMC:

Working memory capacity

References

  • Allen SW, Brooks LR. (1991). Specializing the operation of a explicit rule. J Exp Psychol Gen. 120, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994 to 2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold R, Ranchor AV, Sanderman R, Kempen GIJM, et al. (2004). The relative contribution of domains of quality-of-life to overall quality-of-life for different chronic diseases. Qual Life Res. 13, 883–896.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby FG, Alfronso-Reese LA, Turken AU, Waldron EM. (1998). A neuropsychological theory if multiple systems in category learning. Psychol Rev. 105, 442–481.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby FG, Ell SW. (2001). The neurobiology of category learning. Trends Cogn Sci. 5, 204–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby FG, Maddox WT. (2005). Human category learning. Annu Rev Psychol. 56, 149–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby FG, Waldron EM. (2000). The neuropsychological bases of category learning. Curr Trends Psychol Sci. 9, 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin JL. (1961). Philosophical Papers. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin JL. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley AD. (2002). Is working memory still working? Eur Psychol. 7, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley AD, Della Sala S, Papagno C, Spinnler H. (1997). Dual-task performance in dysexecutive and nondysexecutive patients with frontal lesions. NeuroPsychol. 11, 187–194.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh JA, Ferguson MJ. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychol Bull. 126, 925–945.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barofsky I. (1997). Functional gastrointestinal disorders: Chronic pain management. In, (Eds.), R McCallum, G Friedman and ED Jacobson Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Raven Press, New York, pp. 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett L, Tugade MM, Engle RW. (2004). Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychol Bull. 130,55–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou LW. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Mem Cogn. 11, 211–227.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bergner M, Bobitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. (1981). The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 19, 787–805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birnboim S. (2003). The automatic and controlled information-processing dissociation: Is this still relevant? NeuroPsychol Rev. 13, 19–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blashfield RK. (1986). Structural approaches to classification. In, (Eds.) T. Millon, GL Klerman. Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology: Towards the DSM-IV. New York NY:Guilford. (p. 363–379).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boole G. (1854/1951). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought. On Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. New York NY: Reprinted by Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boroditsky L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers conceptions of time. Cogn Psychol. 43, 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bott L, Hoffman AB, Murphy GL. (2007). Blocking in category learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 136, 685–699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowdle BF, Gentner D. The career of metaphor. Psychol Rev. 112; 193–216, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn NM. (1969). The Structure of Subjective Well-being. Chicago Il: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. (2003). The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using the EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Evidence from the EurQol BIOMED Research Programme. Dordrecht The Netherlands: Kluwer. (p. 254).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain MJ. (2002). Fodor: Language, Mind and Philosophy. Cambridge UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantril H. (1965). The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge MA: Bradford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cella D. (2004). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and Lung Cancer Subscale assess quality-of-life and meaningful symptom improvement in lung cancer. Semin Oncol. 31(3 Suppl 9), 11–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cella D, Gershon R, Lai J-S, Choi S. (2007). The future of outcome measurement: Item banking, tailoring short-forms and computerized adaptive environment. Qual Life Res. 16, 133–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chartand TL, Baugh JA. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. J Personal Soc Psychol. 76, 893–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J-Y. (2007). Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition. 104, 427–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chin L-H. (1972). A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American children. Int J Psychol. 7, 235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa PT, McCrae RR. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manuel. Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955). Construct validity and psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 52: 281–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins RA. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Soc Indic Res. 38, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta S, Foss AJ, Grainge MJ, Gregson RM, et al. (2008). The importance of acuity, steropsis, and contrast sensitivity for health-related quality-of-life in elderly women with cataracts. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 49; 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David KM, Ganiats TG, Miller C. (1999). Placement matters; Stability of the SF-36 EVGFP responses with varying placement of the question in the instrument. Abstract presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the International Society For Quality-of-life Research, Barcelona Spain, November 1999. Qual Life Res. 8, 623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson RJ. (2004). Well-being and affective style: Neural substrates and biobehavioral correlates. Philos Trans R Soc (Biol Sect). 359, 1395–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, et al. (2004). Psychometric properties of vision-related health quality-of-life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 24, 257–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Haes JCJH, van Knippenberg FC, Neijt JP. (1990). Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: Structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer. 62, 1034–1038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeNeve KM, Cooper H (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 124, 197–229.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Estes WK. (1994). Classification and Choice. New York NY: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans JSBT. (2003). In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci. 7, 454–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough DL. (2002). Design and Analysis of Quality-of-life Studies in Clinical Trials. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayers PM, Hand DJ. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality-of-life. Qual of Life Res. 6, 139–150.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein A. (1967). Clinical Judgment. Huntington NY: Krieger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher AE, Ellwein LB, Selvaraj S, Vijaykumar V, et al. (1997). Measurement of vision function and quality-of-life in patients with cataracts in southern India. Report of instrument development. Arch Ophthal. 15, 767–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor J. (1983). Modularity of the Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1892/1966). On Concept and Object. In, (Eds.) P Geach, M Black. Translations from Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. (p. 42).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Though. Lexington MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary DC, Huffman KJ. (2002). Brain and cognitive evolution forms of modularity and functions of mind. Psychol Bull. 128, 667–698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D, Boroditsky L. (1999). Individuation, relativity and early word learning. In, (Eds.) M Bowerman, S Levinson, Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. (p. 215–256).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Todd PM. (1999). Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell M. (2005). Blink. New York NY: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glushko RJ, Maglio PP, Matlock T, Barsalou LW. (2008). Categorization in the wild. Trends Cogn Sci. 12, 129–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez JLG, Jiménez BM, Hernández EG, Puente CP. (2005). Personality and subjective well-being: Big five correlates and demographic variables. Personal Individ Differ. 38, 1561–1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. Am Sociol Rev. 9, 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasher L, Zacks RT. (1979). Automatic and effortful process in memory. J Exp Psychol Gen. 108, 356–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes SC, Wilson KG, Gifford EV, Follette VM, et al. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavior disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. J Consult Clin Psychol. 64, 1152–1168.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld LA, Gelman SA. (1994). Towards a topography of mind: An introduction to domain specificity. In, (Ed.) LA Hirschfeld, SA Gelman. Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York NY: Cambridge University Press. (p. 3–36).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman AB, Murphy GL. (2006). Category dimensionality and feature knowledge: When more features are learned as easily as fewer. J Exp Psychol Learn, Mem Cogn. 32, 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton MS, Markman EM. (1980). Developmental differences in the acquisition of basic and superordinate categories. Child Dev. 51, 708–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurt SJ, Andsager JL. (2003). Medicalization vs. adaptive models? Sense-making in magazine framing of menopause. Women Health. 38, 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10. (1994). Geneva Switzerland: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. (2001). Geneva Switzerland: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansma JM, Ramsey NF, Slagter HA, Kahn RS (2001). Functional anatomical correlates of controlled and automatic processing. J Cogn NeuroSci. 13; 730–743.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • January D, Kako E. (2007). Re-evaluating the evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001). Cognition. 104,417–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Javitt JC, Jacobson G, Schiffman RM. (2003). Validity and reliability of the Cataract TyPE Spec: an instrument for measuring outcomes of cataract extraction. Am J Ophthalmol. 136, 285–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ji L-J, Nisbett RE. (2001). Culture, language and categories. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan MI. (Referenced in Nisbett et al, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji L-J, Zhang Z, Nisbett RE. (2004). It is culture or is it language? Examination of language efforts in cross-cultural research in categorization. J Personal Soc Psychol. 87, 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky D. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Sci Am. 246, 160–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly AMC, Garavan H. (2005). Human functional neuroimaging of brain changes associated with practice. Cereb Cort. 15, 1089–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim K, Relkin N, Lee K, Hirsch J. (1997). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature. 388, 171–174.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • King CR, Hinds PS. (1998). Quality-of-life: From Nursing and Patient Perspectives. Theory, Research, Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovelman I, Baker SA, Petitto LA. (2008). Bilingual and monolingual brains compared: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic processing and a possible “neural signature” of bilingualism. J Cogn NeuroSci. 20, 153–169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause N, Kay G. (1994). What do global self-rated health items measure? Med Care. 32, 930–942.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kyllonen PC, Christal RE. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity. Intelligence. 14, 389–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago II: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Nunez RE (2000) Where Mathematics Comes From. New York NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau J, Michon JJ, Chan W-S, Ellwein LB. (2002). Visual acuity and quality-of-life outcomes in cataract surgery patients in Hong Kong. Brit J Ophthalmol. 86; 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JE, Fos PJ, Zuniga MA, Kastl PR, et al. (2001). Assessing health-related quality-of-life in cataract patients: The relationship between utility and health-related quality-of-life treatment. Qual Life Res. 9, 1127–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman A, Mattingly I. (1989). A specialization for speech perception. Science. 243, 489–494.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Logan RF. (1986) The Alphabet Effect. New York NY: Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurence S, Margolis E. (2002). Radical concept nativism. Cognition. 86, 25–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lykken D, Tellegen A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychol Sci. 7, 186–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manguione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, Lawrence MG, et al. (1992). Development of the ‘Activities of Daily Vision Scale’: A measure of visual functional status. Med Care. 30, 1111–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manguione CM, Phillips RS, Lawrence MG, Seddon JM, et al. (1994). Improved visual function and attenuation of declines in health-related quality-of-life after cataract extraction. Acta Ophthalmol. 112,1419–1425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques JF. (2007). The general specific breakdown of semantic memory and the nature of superordinate knowledge: Insights from superordinate and basic-level feature norms. Cogn NeuroPsychol. 24, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marr D. (1982). Vision. New York NY: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath PJ, Finley GA. (1999). Chronic and Recurrent Pain in Children and Adolescents. Seattle WA: IASP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Lynch EB, Coley JD, Atran S. (1997). Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: Do all roads lead to Rome? Cogn Psychol. 32, 49–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Schwanenflugel PJ. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem. 7: 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Lynch EB, Solomon KO. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts? Annu Rev Psychol. 51,121–147.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl PE. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits, and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. J Personal. 60, 117–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl PE. (2004). What’s in a taxa? J Abnorm Psychol. 113, 39–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melzack R, Wall PD. (1965). Pain mechanisms: A new theory. Science. 150, 971–979.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moors A, de Houwer J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychol Bull. 132, 297–326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy GL. (2005). The study of concepts inside and outside the laboratory “Medin versus Medin.” In, (Eds.) W Ahn, RL Goldstone, BC Love, AB Markman, P Wolff. Categorization Inside and Outside the Laboratory: Essays in Honor of Douglas L. Medin. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. (p. 179–195).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy GL, Wisniewski EJ. (1989). Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 15, 572–586.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nes RB, Røysamb E, Tambs K, Harris JR, et al. (2006). Subjective well-being : Genetic and environmental contributions to stability and change. Psychol Med. 36,1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett RE. (2003). The Geography of Thought. New York NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev. 108,291–310.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Norenzayana A, Nisbett RE. (2000). Culture and causal cognition. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 9, 132–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman G. (2003). Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. 12, 239–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nosofsky RM, Palmeri TJ. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychol Rev. 104, 266–300.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary. (1996). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla GV, Kagawa-Singer M. Quality-of-life and culture. In, (Eds.) CR King, PA Hinds, Quality-of-life From Nursing and Patient Perspectives: Theory-Research-Practice. Sudbury MA, Jones and Bartlett, 1998. (p74–92).

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick DL. (2003). Concept of health-related quality-of-life and of patient-reported outcomes. In, (Eds.) O Chassany, C Caulin. Health-Related Quality-of-life and Patient-reported Outcomes: Scientific and Useful Outcome Criteria. Paris France: Springer. (p. 23–34).

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick DL, Chiang Y-P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations. Med Care.; 38 (Suppl II), II-14- II-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick DL, Deyo RA. (1989). Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality-of-life. Med Care. 27(suppl. 3), S217–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick DL, Elinson J. (1984). Sociomedical approaches to disease and treatment outcomes in cardiovascular care. Qual Life Cardiovasc Care. 1, 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick DL, Erickson P. (1993). Health Status and Health Policy: Quality-of-life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York NY: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips C, Jarrold C, Baddeley AD, Grant J, et al. (2004). Comprehension of spatial language terms in Williams syndrome: evidence for an interaction between domains of strength and weakness. Cortex. 40, 85–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polack S, Kuper H, Mathenge W, Fletcher A, et al. (2007). Cataract vision impairment and quality-of-life in a Kenyan population. Br J Ophthalmol. 91,927–932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pollak KL, Arnold RM, Jeffreys AS, Alexander SC, et al. (2007). Oncologist communication about emotion during visits with patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25, 5748–5752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos EM, Close J. (2008). One or two dimensions in spontaneous classification: A simplified approach. Cognition. 107, 581–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey NF, Jansma JM, Jager G, van Raalten T, et al. (2004). Neurophysiological factors in human information processing ­capacity. Brain. 127, 517–525.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Read SJ, Jones DK, Miller LC. (1990). Traits as goal-based categories: The importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories. J Personal Soc Psychol. 58, 1048–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch E, Mervis CB, Gray W, Johnson D, et al. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn Psychol. 8, 382–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen PN, Kaplan RM, David K. (2005). Measuring outcomes of cataract surgery using the Quality of Well-being Scale and the VF-14 Visual Function Index. J Cataract Refract Sur. 31: 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruscio J, Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB, Chelminski I. (2007). Diagnosing major depression XI: A taxometric investigation of the structure underlying DSM-IV symptoms. J Nerv Ment Dis. 195, 10–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt NB, Kotov R, Joiner TE Jr. (2004). Taxometrics: Towards a New Diagnostic Scheme for Psychopathology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider W, Shiffrin RM. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychol Rev. 84, 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith EE, Medin DL. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith ER, DeCoster J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 4,108–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representation. In, (Eds.) LA Hirschfeld, SA Gelman. Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York NY: Cambridge University Press. (p. 39–67).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D. (2002). In defense of massive modularity. In, (Ed.) E Dupoux. Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. (p. 47–57).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger MA, Schwartz CE. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality-of-life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 49, 1507–1515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer K, Keil FC. (1989). On the development of biologically specific beliefs: the case of inheritance. Child Dev. 60, 637–648.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovisch KE, Wast RF. (2003). Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: How evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality. In, (Ed.) DE Over, Evolution and the Psychology of Thinking. Philadelphia PA: Psychology Press. (p 171–230).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Shein OD, Javitt JC, et al. (1994). The VF-14: An index of functional impairment in patients with cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol. 112, 630–638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale JD. (1999). Multi-level theories of cognition-emotion relations. In (Eds.) T Dalgleish, MJ Power, Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Chichester UK: Wiley. (p. 665–681).

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance GW. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. J Health Econ. 5, 1–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. (1995). Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. Pharm Econ. 7, 503–520.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Uleman JS, Newman LS, Moskowitz GB. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In, (Ed.) MP Zanna, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego CA: Academic Press.(Vol. 28, p. 211–279).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Reekum CM, Urry HL, Johnstone T, Thurow ME, et al. (2007) Individual differences in amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity are associated with evaluation speed and psychological well-being. J Cogn NeuroSci. 19, 237–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Osch SMC, Stiggelbout AM. (2005). Understanding VAS valuations: Qualitative data on the cognitive process. Qual Life Res. 14, 2171–2175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wall PD, Melzack R. (1994). Textbook of Pain. Edinburgh UK: Churchill Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. (1992). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36®): I. conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 30,473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiskopf DA. (2009). The plurality of concepts. Synthese. 169. DOI 1007/S11229-008-9340-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss A, Bates TC, Luciano M. (2008). Happiness is a personal(ity) thing: The genetics of personality and well-being in a representative sample. Psychol Sci. 19, 205–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whorf BL. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson IB, Cleary PD. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality-of-life: A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 273, 59–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Winawer J, Witthoft N, Frank MC, Wu L, et al. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 104; 7780–7785.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski EJ, Clancy EJ, Tillman RN. (2005). On different types of categories. In, (Eds.) W Ahn, RL Goldstone, BC Love, AB Markman, P Wolff. Categorization Inside and Outside the Laboratory: Essays in Honor of Douglas L. Medin. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. (p. 103–126).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. (1997). Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manag. 13,16–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zárate MA, Sanders JD, Garza AA. (2000). Neurological disassociations of social perception processes. Soc Cogn. 18, 223–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithamova D, Maddox WT. (2006). Dual-task interference in ­perceptual category learning. Mem Cogn. 34, 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. (1983). The hospital and anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 67, 361–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB, Young D, Cheiminski I. (2006). Diagnosing major depressive disorder IX: Are patients who deny low mood a distinct subgroup? J Nerv Ment Dis. 194, 864–869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quality of Life Institute, East Sandwich, MA, 02537, USA

    Ivan Barofsky

Authors
  1. Ivan Barofsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Barofsky .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barofsky, I. (2012). Summary Measurement: The Role of Categories or Domains. In: Quality. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9819-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9819-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-9818-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-9819-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation