A Creation Narrative for the Psychometric Society and Psychometrika: In the Beginning There Was Paul Horst.

A review is provided for the creation of the Psychometric Society in 1935, and the establishment of its journal, Psychometrika, in 1936. This document is part of the 80th anniversary celebration for Psychometrika's founding, held during the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society in July of 2016 in Asheville, NC.

The variance of the adjusted Rand index.

For 30 years, the adjusted Rand index has been the preferred method for comparing 2 partitions (e.g., clusterings) of a set of observations. Although the index is widely used, little is known about its variability. Herein, the variance of the adjusted Rand index (Hubert & Arabie, 1985) is provided and its properties are explored. It is shown that a normal approximation is appropriate across a wide range of sample sizes and varying numbers of clusters. Further, it is shown that confidence intervals based on the normal distribution have desirable levels of coverage and accuracy. Finally, the first power analysis evaluating the ability to detect differences between 2, different adjusted Rand indices is provided. (PsycINFO Database Record

A new condition for assessing the clinical efficiency of a diagnostic test.

When prediction using a diagnostic test outperforms simple prediction using base rates, the test is said to be "clinically efficient," a term first introduced into the literature by Meehl and Rosen (1955) in Psychological Bulletin. This article provides three equivalent conditions for determining the clinical efficiency of a diagnostic test: (a) Meehl-Rosen (Meehl & Rosen, 1955); (b) Dawes (Dawes, 1962); and (c) the Bokhari-Hubert condition, introduced here for the first time. Clinical efficiency is then generalized to situations where misclassification costs are considered unequal (for example, false negatives are more costly than false positives). As an illustration, the clinical efficiency of an actuarial device for predicting violent and dangerous behavior is examined that was developed as part of the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study.

The heritability of antinociception: common pharmacogenetic mediation of five neurochemically distinct analgesics.

The heritability of nociception and antinociception has been well established in the mouse. The pharmacogenetics of morphine analgesia are fairly well characterized, but far less is known about other analgesics. The purpose of this work was to begin the systematic genetic study of non-mu-opioid analgesics. We tested mice of 12 inbred mouse strains for baseline nociceptive sensitivity (49 degrees C tail-withdrawal assay) and subsequent antinociceptive sensitivity to systemic administration of (trans)-3,4-dichloro-N-methyl-N-[2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-cyclohexyl]benzeneacetamide methane-sulfonate hydrate (U50,488; 10-150 mg/kg), a kappa-opioid receptor agonist; (R)-(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-1-naphthalenylmethanone (WIN55,212-2; 0.5-480 mg/kg), a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist; epibatidine (7.5-150 microg/kg), a nicotinic receptor agonist; clonidine (0.1-5 mg/kg), an alpha(2)-adrenergic receptor agonist; and, for purposes of comparison, the prototypic mu-opioid receptor agonist, morphine (5-200 mg/kg). Robust interstrain variability was observed in nociceptive sensitivity and in the antinociceptive effects of each of the drugs, with extreme-responding strains exhibiting antinociceptive potencies differing up to 37-fold. Unexpectedly, we observed moderate-to-high genetic correlations of strain sensitivities to the five drugs (r = 0.39-0.77). We also found moderate-to-high correlations between baseline nociceptive sensitivity and subsequent analgesic response to each drug (r = 0.33-0.68). The generalizability of these findings was established in follow-up experiments investigating morphine and clonidine inhibition of formalin test nociception. Despite the fact that each drug activates a unique receptor, our results suggest that the potency of each drug is affected by a common set of genes. However, the genes in question may affect antinociception indirectly, via a primary action on baseline nociceptive sensitivity.