Modeling Responses and Response Times in Rating Scales With the Linear Ballistic Accumulator
Abstract
Abstract. In this article, a new model is proposed for the responses and the response times in attitudinal or personality inventories with graded response format. The model is based on the lognormal race model (Heathcote & Love, 2012) and assumes two accumulators that aggregate evidence in favor of and against the statement made by an item of an inventory. The accumulator that first reaches a response threshold determines the direction of the response (agreement/disagreement). The strength of the response, which is indicated by the choice of a graded response option, is a function of the difference between the two accumulators when responding. By relating the accumulators to latent traits, the model can be embedded into a latent trait model that accounts for individual differences. The model can be fit to data with marginal maximum likelihood estimation. A test of model fit is described, and it is shown how the model can be used for attitudinal and personality assessment. Finally, the application of the model is demonstrated with a real dataset.
References
(2007). Personality scale response latencies as self-schema indicators: The inverted-U effect revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 611–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.005
(1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.
(1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
(1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis. London, UK: Arnold.
(2007). Cognitive psychometrics: Combining two psychological traditions. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CSCA Lecture.
(2012). Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychological Methods, 17, 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028111
(2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002
(2006). Validating a new method for quantifying traits: The computer-administered visual analog. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 285–312.
(1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 39, 1–38.
(2011). Drawing conclusions from choice response time models: A tutorial using the linear ballistic accumulator. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.10.001
(2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
(2006). Person-item distance and response time: An empirical study in personality measurement. Psicologica, 27, 137–148.
(2007a). An item response theory model for incorporating response time data in binary personality items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606295197
(2007b). A measurement model for Likert responses that incorporates response time. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 675–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701710247
(2012). Linear deterministic accumulator models of simple choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00292
(1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104, 344–366.
(2014). Choice certainty is informed by both evidence and decision time. Neuron, 84, 1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.015
(2009). Representation of confidence associated with a decision by neurons in the parietal cortex. Science, 324, 759–764.
(2000). The threat of satisficing in surveys: The shortcuts respondents take in answering questions. Survey Methods Newsletter, 20, 4–8.
(1981). Convergent evidence for the self as a prototype: The “Inverted-U RT Effect” for self and other judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 438–443.
(2011). A review of recent response-time analyses in educational testing. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 3, 359–379.
(2013). Response latency measurement in surveys. Detecting strong attitudes and response effects. Survey Methods Insights from the Field. Retrieved from http://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063
(1997). The EM algorithm and extensions. New York, NY: Wiley.
(2014). An item response model for Likert-type data that incorporates response time in personality measurements. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 84, 1–21.
(2006). An application of the Poisson race model to confidence calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 391–408.
(2015). The value of response times in item response modeling. Measurement, 13, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2015.1105073
(2015a). Fitting diffusion item response theory models for responses and response times using the R package diffIRT. Journal of Statistical Software, 66, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v066.i04
(2015b). A generalized linear factor model approach to the hierarchical framework for responses and response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68, 197–219.
(2010). Decision confidence and uncertainty in diffusion models with partially correlated neuronal integrators. Neural Computation, 22, 1786–1811. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2010.12-08-930
(1985). Maximum likelihood specification testing and conditional moment tests. Econometrica, 53, 1047–1070. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911011
(2011). A model of dynamic choice, confidence, and motor response (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Ohio
(2010). Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychological Review, 117, 864–901. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019737
. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org. Austria: Vienna
(2013). Modeling responses and response times in personality tests with rating scales. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55, 361–382.
(2014). Testing fit of latent trait models for responses and response times in tests. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56, 370–392.
(2011). Assessing personality traits through response latencies using Item Response Theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410382895
(1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
(2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116, 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014086"10.1037/a0014086
(1996). A unidimensional item response model for unfolding responses from a graded disagree-agree response scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 231–255.
(2001). Psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the Five Factor Personality Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.17.2.145
(2015). The lognormal race: A cognitive-process model of choice and latency with desirable psychometric properties. Psychometrika, 80, 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9396-3
(1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34(Supplement 1), 1–97.
(2015).
Gauss–Hermite Quadrature in Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Item Parameters . In L. van der ArkD. BoltW. WangJ. DouglasS.-M. ChowEds., Quantitative Psychology Research (pp. 43–58) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19977-1. New York, NY: Springer.(2014). How often is the misfit of item response theory models practically significant? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33, 23–35.
(1985). Diagnostic testing and evaluation of maximum likelihood models. Journal of Econometrics, 30, 415–443.
(2015). Generalising the drift rate distribution for linear ballistic accumulators. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 68, 49–58.
(2005). Two interpretations of the discrimination parameter. Psychometrika, 70, 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-000-0810-3
(2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46, 247–272.
(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, 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022749
(2004). Response reversals in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1147–1166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1147
(1979). Decision processes in visual perception. New York, NY: Academic Press.
(2001).
Where does the balance of evidence lie with respect to confidence? . In E. SommerfeldR. KompassT. LachmannEds., Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 148–153). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.(1934). The relation of the time of judgment to the certainty of judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 31, 672–673.
(1998). Choice latency times as determinants of post-decisional confidence. Acta Psychologica, 98, 103–115.
