MISS will consider different types of articles as described here. Limits for words, references, tables, and figures can be found in the table below.
New Measurement Instrument
New Measurement Instrument presents a new questionnaire or testing procedure. The instrument may either be completely new, or offer an improvement over an existing measurement approach (e.g. a short scale). A theoretical rationale, a measurement model, and demonstrable advancement over the current or dominant measurement approaches are necessary. While full documentation of extensive social surveys with a multitude of concepts is out of scope, item-sets may be taken from such surveys and evaluated as separate scales. The article is frequently, yet not necessarily, limited to a single sample. Examples are Neto (2021) and Marsh et al. (2005).
International Adaptation of Measurement Instruments
International Adaptation of Measurement Instruments present a survey, questionnaire or itemized testing procedure for at least one new language. An important intermediate step for scientific progress is the international harmonization of measurement instruments. Social surveys and their items (or item-sets), alternatively construct-specific questionnaires, together with their response options often need to be comparable across languages (or cultures). This article type requires at least an instrument's translation to a different language, or an adaptation to accommodate a different cultural background. While the instrument could be new, in many cases there will be an existing source instrument (or reference standard) as a starting point for the study, often necessitating a complex sample. Examples are Leung et al. (2016) and de Leeuw et al. (2019).
Validation of Measurement Instruments
Validation of Measurement Instruments present a thorough evaluation of an established instrument. A theoretical rationale, a specified validation strategy, and an adequate research design are required. Validation efforts must enhance our knowledge of psychometric properties of the instrument. Quality criteria have to be interpreted with regard to the inferences they allow about the targeted population. Information about comparability across same-language groups (for instance gender, age, education, and ethnic background) is an asset, though limited comparability does not preclude publication yet must be presented to inspire future scientific progress. The evaluation must be in line with recent methodological standards (e.g., the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education). This article type is often characterized by a single sample – ideally representative for the general or a well-defined target population. For examples, see Fuchs et al. (2021) and Karl & Fischer (2020).
Short Report
Short Reports present research that extends previous knowledge about established measurement instruments (surveys, questionnaires, or tests). They may offer additional insight, procedural updates to existing work and established methods, confirmatory evidence as well as negative outcomes (replication failures). The findings may be contextual in nature and hinge on specific settings or suggest adaptations for major population groups, yet they should regularly recommend better measurement procedures. The typical short report addresses one instrument by using a single sample – ideally representative for the general population. MISS may publish intriguing findings that concern major population subgroups, depending on sample size and the quality of sampling and research design. Though focusing on the quality of measurement instruments (or procedures), a full instrument validation is out of scope (please refer to Validation of Measurement Instruments instead). See Cornesse et al. (2022) for an example.
Systematic Review
Systematic Review articles may summarize a research field with or without meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews are critical assessments of literature, research findings, and data, while focusing on the use and analysis of measurement instruments in the social sciences. Occasionally, MISS may consider systematic reviews for publication if they pertain to specific measurement tools or a family of measurement instruments, emphasizing quality indicators such as objectivity, reliability estimates, construct validity, factorial validity (measurement model), predictive validity, or fairness and comparability (equivalence) across groups. Meta-analysis must quantitatively combine the results of multiple studies that measure the same outcome into a single summary statistic (alternatively synthesize evidence on different operationalizations to answer the same research question). The article must address an open question relevant for measurement practice by presenting evidence in a balanced and method-oriented way. General recommendations and specific guidelines apply (see Davis et al., 2014; Botella et al., 2010; Leeflang et al., 2008; Holland, 2015). For examples, see Worley et al. (2008) and López-Nicolás et al. (2021).
Test Review
Test Reviews are comprehensive, authoritative descriptions of testing procedures. They must be carried out by experts in the field of testing and test use, and pursue an educational aim. The focus is on the evaluation of test materials and test characteristics as well as evidence of psychometric quality. A test review evaluates whether a test measures what it purports to measure, and to what extent the interpretation of test scores (e.g., individual attributes), as laid out by the authors, is justified. Guidelines and test criteria provided by the International Test Commission as well as those by the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations should be consulted. Country- or language-specific test review recommendations may be appropriate where they are in place (e.g., TBS-TK in Germany). The guidelines chosen for test reviews are to be comprehensively used and transparently described. Any limitation of test quality should be accurately presented and in a constructive way for future improvement. Gordon (2002) and Frame et al. (2016) may serve as examples.
Meeting Report
Meeting Reports summarize major topics of a meeting, symposium, or workshop. Synthesizing key themes across multiple speakers, they underscore dissent as well as consensus. Meeting reports focus on trends, key developments as well as new discoveries, recommend changes in best practice, and advance the application of new insights to measurement instruments in the social sciences. For large meetings it may be preferable that in-depth information is provided on a few select topics, rather than presenting a brief account of everything. Meeting reports may cover activities of specific task forces liaised with scientific organizations as long as they pertain to measurement. Controversies and challenges that are to be investigated need to be highlighted as directions for future research. Though they are usually commissioned, meeting reports may also be suggested for the editors' consideration. Avvisati et al. (2019) and Fitzpatrick & Rothman (2002) may serve as examples.
Advances in Methodology
Advances in Methodology articles foster best practice in social-scientific measurement or recommend changes in testing or analytical procedures. Based on evidence, they provide a balanced, method-oriented review focusing on the use and analysis of measurement instruments in the social sciences. This may pertain to the impact of a new measurement approach on the social sciences in general; or a secondary data analysis of large-scale assessment; or the utility of specifically refined methods applied to measurement instruments; or a primer (tutorial) on how to accurately implement a method for measurement. These articles provide a good overview of current practices, provide sound reasoning for newly recommended procedures, and information about methodological developments that affect best practice. Before suggesting any changes in methodological standards it is essential to assess the quality of the current practice and evidence. Lechner et al. (2020) or Robitzsch & Lüdtke (2022) may serve as examples.
Limits for Words, References, Tables, and Figures
| Category | Word Count (Main Text) | Word Count (Abstract) | Number of References | Number of Tables | Number of Figures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Measurement Instrument | 3,000 | 250 | 30 | 3 | 2 |
| International Adaptation of Measurement Instruments | 4,000 | 300 | 30 | 3 | 2 |
| Validation of Measurement Instruments | 4,000 | 250 | 40 | 3 | 2 |
| Short Report | 2,500 | 250 | 20 | 2 | 1 |
| Systematic Review | 5,000 | 300 | 50 | 2 | 2 |
| Test Review | 3,000 | 250 | 40 | 1 | 1 |
| Meeting Report | 3,000 | 250 | 30 | 2 | 2 |
| Advances in Methodology | 5,000 | 250 | 50 | 3 | 3 |