The making of meaning: comments on Hofstee and Ten Berge

Hofstee and Ten Berge (2004/this issue) outline a method of scale transformation that places scores on a common absolute scale. This contrasts with traditional relative methods of transformation, which involve scaling in relation to a sample mean. Their primary intention seems to be to produce a scale that is intrinsically meaningful. This issue of scale meaning is discussed in some detail, including reference to an alternate approach to absolute scaling offered by Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, and West (1999). Ultimately, neither approach to absolute scaling seems completely satisfactory as a resolution to this problem. It is suggested that the lack of meaning inherent to many psychosocial measures is a natural product of traditional aggregative practices in scale development and may be invulnerable to statistical correction.