The question addressed in this paper is to what extent does the use of measurement indicators based on differing, even contradictory, epistemic assumptions affect the acceptability of the empirical conclusions. The approach used monotonic transformations of empirically obtained measures of occupational and educational status to investigate the effect of patterns of intervalization which were isomorphic with epistemic relationship between the indices and the theoretical construct of social status. Data for this report were obtained from a 3 wave, 6 year panel of nonmetropolitan southern youths in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. The first sample of high school sophomores was originally collected in 1966 and 1967, and subsequently 2 and 6 years later. From the resulting panel of 1,228, 627 males were analyzed. The analysis of the matrix of occupational transformations tended to suggest that, at least, for occupational status measures of the Duncan SEI type that the relaxation of assumption of interval measurement required for parametric procedures may not result in excessive error. The configuration of the correlation coefficients for the educational status tended to follow a similar pattern. The reader is cautioned, however, about accepting the conclusions drawn from this analysis because there do not exist, at this time, any satisfactory procedures for analyzing differences in the type of coefficients produced or for directly evaluating epistemic error. (KM)