Administration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), using multidimensional computer adaptive tests (MCATs) has the potential to reduce patient burden, but the efficiency of MCAT depends on the degree to which an individual's responses fit the psychometric properties of the assessment. Assessing patients' symptom burden through the…

Most of the scientometric indicators use only the total number of citations of an article and produce a single number for scientific assessment of scholars. Although this concept is very simple to compute, it fails to show the scientific productivity and impact of scholars during a time-span or in a year. To overcome this, several time series…

Diagnostic classification models (DCMs) classify examinees based on the skills they have mastered given their test performance. This classification enables targeted feedback that can inform remedial instruction. Unfortunately, applications of DCMs have been criticized (e.g., no validity support). Generally, these evaluations have been brief and…

The target article seems to provide yet another illustration of the classic "It don't make no nevermind" principle in statistical analysis. In particular, relatively simple measures appear to do approximately as well as more complex measures do, even including indicators that represent nonlinear transformations of the simpler measures. The authors…

Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) have provided an impressively comprehensive conceptual and empirical psychometric analysis of 22 modern-day citation measures. Their analyses show that although numerous measures have been developed to ameliorate perceived limitations of Hirsch's (2005) "h" index (which is…

Scholarly impact is studied frequently and used to make consequential decisions (e.g., hiring, tenure, promotion, research support, professional honors), and therefore it is important to measure it accurately. Developments in information technology and statistical methods provide promising new metrics to complement traditional information sources…

The literature on bibliometric indices for assessing scholarly impact, in particular the "h" index (Hirsch, 2005) and its many variants, is extensive, but nevertheless Ruscio and colleagues (this issue) succeed in making a valuable contribution. They have made the effort of collecting publication and citation data for no less than 1,750…

Ruscio and colleagues (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) have done a great service by systematically comparing indices of scholarly impact. Three aspects of their work are particularly valuable: (1) Their assessment of the proliferating collection of metrics, whose development has become something of a cottage industry,…

In their article Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) present a comparative study of some of the different variants of the "h" index. The study evaluates a total of 22 metrics, including the "h" index and "h"-type indices, as well as other conventional measures. The novelty of their work is to a large extent…

Describing, explaining, and discussing various modern indices of scholarly impact as accomplished by Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) is highly commendable, as such measures get increasingly important in hiring and promotion decisions. The author agrees with almost all points made in the target article, except the…

Ruscio and colleagues (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) provide a thoughtful empirical analysis of 22 different measures of individual scholarly impact. The simplest metric is number of publications, which Simonton (1997) found to be a reasonable predictor of career trajectories. Although the assessment of the scholarly…

Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) write of a thing with which scientists and scholars are all too familiar, the assessment of published research and of its authors. The author was startled to discover how little the agenda of the paper seems to engage with factors one relies on for salary and promotion…

Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik (this issue) evaluate 22 bibliometric indicators, including conventional measures, like the number of publications, the "h" index, and many "h" index variants. To assess the quality of the indicators, their well-justified criteria encompass conceptual, empirical, and practical…