[Rasch] Dimensionality and Correlation

Andrew Kyngdon akyngdon at lexile.com
Wed Nov 12 09:12:42 EST 2008


Also in my view, a lot of people try to use correlations 
as a substitute for experiments that are required to understand 
relationships between quantitative properties.

Hear, hear!
 
Dr Andrew Kyngdon
Director of Pacific Rim Operations
MetaMetrics, Inc.
P.O. Box 754 North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia
Phone: 0401768090 (Int. +61401768090)
Email: akyngdon at lexile.com 
Web: www.lexile.com <http://www.lexile.com/>  
Lexile Teacher's Lounge: http://lexile-teachers.blogspot.com/ 

________________________________

From: rasch-bounces at acer.edu.au on behalf of Stephen Humphry
Sent: Sat 08-Nov-08 7:46 PM
To: rasch at acer.edu.au
Subject: Re: [Rasch] Dimensionality and Correlation




Hi Anthony. In my view there's a lot of confusion surrounding this in 
the social sciences.

Think of volume and mass. If the densities of a set of objects is 
uniform (e.g. they're all made of uranium), then the correlation 
between measurements of their mass and volume will be near 1.

Does that make mass and volume the same quantitative property? Clearly not.

Suppose on the other hand, objects are made of a range of substances 
-- styrofoam, rubbers, metals (even gases). Then measurements of mass 
and volume will not be highly correlated and may have a very low 
correlation.

It is possible to have a perfect correlation between two sets of 
measurements yet for those measurements to be of different kinds of 
quantities (dimensions).

So if two sets of measurements (i) are genuinely measurements and (ii) 
have a low correlation, then they must be different kinds of 
quantities (dimensions).

On the other hand, though, the fact two sets of measurements has a 
high (even perfect) correlation is not sufficient to demonstrate there 
is only one kind of quantity (kind of dimension). In my view it's 
theoretically instructive to consider whether it is conceivable that 
levels of two properties could be uncorrelated among any group of 
individuals under any conditions. It's an experimental question 
whether there are conditions under which two things are not 
correlated. Also in my view, a lot of people try to use correlations 
as a substitute for experiments that are required to understand 
relationships between quantitative properties.

I also personally think the word unidimensionality is bit frought with 
traps. Hope that helps.

Steve Humphry


Quoting Anthony James <luckyantonio2003 at yahoo.com>:

> Dear all,
> I have difficulty understanding the difference between  
> dimensionality and correlation. I have seen several times in the  
> literature that people talk about correlated dimensions and  
> uncorrelated dimensions. I was always under the impression that if  
> two dimensions are correlated then they are not two separate  
> dimensions. They are one. But apparently, this is not true and there 
>  can be two separate, and at the same time, correlated dimensions. 
> Is  that right? I'd be grateful for any comments on the relationship 
>  between correlation and dimensionality. Apparantly corrlation  
> doesn't have much to do with unidimensionality.
> Cheers
> Anthony
>  
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Rasch mailing list
Rasch at acer.edu.au
https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rasch





More information about the Rasch mailing list