Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:11:39.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on the Hierarchical Model for Responses and Response Times in Tests of van der Linden (2007)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Jochen Ranger
Jochen Ranger*
Affiliation:
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jochen Ranger, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany. E-mail: jochen.ranger@psych.uni-halle.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Findings suggest that in psychological tests not only the responses but also the times needed to give the responses are related to characteristics of the test taker. This observation has stimulated the development of latent trait models for the joint distribution of the responses and the response times. Such models are motivated by the hope to improve the estimation of the latent traits by additionally considering response time. In this article, the potential relevance of the response times for psychological assessment is explored for the model of van der Linden (Psychometrika 72:287–308, 2007) that seems to have become the standard approach to response time modeling in educational testing. It can be shown that the consideration of response times increases the information of the test. However, one also can prove that the contribution of the response times to the test information is bounded and has a simple limit.

Keywords

item response theoryresponse timetest information
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 538 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 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.)

References

Baker, F., Kim, S. (2004). Item response theory: parameter estimation techniques, (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel DekkerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrando, P., Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2007). An item response theory model for incorporating response time data in binary personality items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 525–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furneaux, W. (1952). Some speed, error and difficulty relationships within a problem-solving situation. Nature, 170, 37–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loyes, T., Rosseel, Y., Baten, K. (2011). A joint modeling approach for reaction time and accuracy in psycholinguistic experiments. Psychometrika, 76, 487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, Z., Kedem, B. (2000). Normal orthant probabilities in the equicorrelation case. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 246, 280–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orchard, T., Woodbury, M. (1972). A missing information principle: theory and applications. Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 697715Google Scholar
Ranger, J., Ortner, T. (2011). Assessing personality traits through response latencies using item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskam, E. (1997). Models for speed and time-limit tests. In van der Linden, W., Hambelton, R. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory, New York: Springer 187208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, D., Gianola, D. (2002). Likelihood, Bayesian, and MCMC methods in quantitative genetics, Berlin: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D. (1983). Timed testing: an approach using item response theory. In Weiss, D. (Eds.), New horizons in testing: latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing, New York: Academic Press 179203Google Scholar
van Breukelen, G., Roskam, E. (1991). A Rasch model for the speed-accuracy tradeoff in time-limited tests. In Doignon, J., Falmagne, J. (Eds.), Mathematical psychology: current developments, New York: Springer 251271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W. (2007). A hierarchical framework for modeling speed and accuracy on test items. Psychometrika, 72, 287–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W. (2008). Using response times for item selection in adaptive tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W. (2009). A bivariate lognormal response-time model for the detection of collusion between test takers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 378–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46, 247–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W., Klein Entink, R., Fox, J.-P. (2010). IRT parameter estimation with response times as collateral information. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 327–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Linden, W., van Krimpen-Stoop, E. (2003). Using response times to detect aberrant responses in computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 68, 251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Maas, H., Molenaar, D., Maris, G., Kievit, R., Boorsboom, D. (2011). Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: on the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences. Psychological Review, 118, 339–356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhelst, N., Verstralen, H., Jansen, M. (1997). A logistic model for time-limit tests. In van der Linden, W., Hambelton, R. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory, New York: Springer 169185CrossRefGoogle Scholar