Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:58:36.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A General Latent Trait Model for Response Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Susan Embretson (Whitely)
Susan Embretson (Whitely)*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Embretson, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of the current paper is to propose a general multicomponent latent trait model (GLTM) for response processes. The proposed model combines the linear logistic latent trait (LLTM) with the multicomponent latent trait model (MLTM). As with both LLTM and MLTM, the general multicomponent latent trait model can be used to (1) test hypotheses about the theoretical variables that underlie response difficulty and (2) estimate parameters that describe test items by basic substantive properties. However, GLTM contains both component outcomes and complexity factors in a single model and may be applied to data that neither LLTM nor MLTM can handle. Joint maximum likelihood estimators are presented for the parameters of GLTM and an application to cognitive test items is described.

Keywords

latent trait modelsitem response theoryaptitude process model
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 175 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was partially supported by the National Institute of Education grant number NIE-6-7-0156 to Susan Embretson (Whitely), principal investigator. However the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Institute of Education, and no official endorsement by the National Institute of Education should be inferred.

References

Andersen, E. B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1976). Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new “structure of intellect”. In Resnick, L. B. (Eds.), The nature of intelligence, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cliff, N. (1977). Further study of cognitive processing models for inventory response. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N., Bradley, P., & Girard, R. (1973). The investigation of cognitive models for inventory response. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 8, 407–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cognitive Abilities Test. (1978). Lombard, Illinois: Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Embretson (Whitely), S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. (1973). Linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G. H. (1981). On the existence and uniqueness of maximum-likelihood estimates in the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 46, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G., & Formann, A. K. (1982). Same applications of logistic latent trait models with linear constraints on the parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, E. (1978). Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological Review, 85, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. N. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mulholland, T. M. (1980). Pellegrino, J. W. & Glaser, R. Components of geometric analogy solution. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 252–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information-processing research. In Kantowitz, B. (Eds.), (B 1)Human information-processing. Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41–82). Hillsdale, N.J.: Eilbaum.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences. Intelligence, 3, 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W., & Lyon, D. R. (1979). The components of a componential analysis. Intelligence, 3, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Reitman, W. (1965). Cognition and thought, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. S. (1977). Intelligence, information processing and analogical reasoning. Hillsdale: New Jersey, Chap. 4.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. (1969). Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction time experiments. American Scientist, 4, 412–457.Google Scholar
Thissen, D. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation for the one-parameter logistic model. Psychometrika, 47, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitely, S. E. (1981). Measuring aptitude processes with multicomponent latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitely, S. E. (1980). Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests. Psychometrika, 45, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitely, S. E., & Barnes, G. M. (1979). The implications of processing event sequences for theories of analogical reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 7, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitely, S. E., & Curtright, C. (1980). Performance and stimulus complexity norms for verbal analogy test items. Technical Report NIE-80-4 for National Institute on Education, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Whitely, S. E., & Nieh, K. (1981). Program MULTICOMP: Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Whitely, S. E., & Schneider, L. M. (1981). Information structure on geometric analogies: A test theory approach. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar