IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v38y2013i4p381-417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Semiparametric Model for Jointly Analyzing Response Times and Accuracy in Computerized Testing

Author

Listed:
  • Chun Wang

    (University of Minnesota)

  • Zhewen Fan

    (Precision Therapeutics, Inc.)

  • Hua-Hua Chang

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Jeffrey A. Douglas

Abstract

The item response times (RTs) collected from computerized testing represent an underutilized type of information about items and examinees. In addition to knowing the examinees’ responses to each item, we can investigate the amount of time examinees spend on each item. Current models for RTs mainly focus on parametric models, which have the advantage of conciseness, but may suffer from reduced flexibility to fit real data. We propose a semiparametric approach, specifically, the Cox proportional hazards model with a latent speed covariate to model the RTs, embedded within the hierarchical framework proposed by van der Linden to model the RTs and response accuracy simultaneously. This semiparametric approach combines the flexibility of nonparametric modeling and the brevity and interpretability of the parametric modeling. A Markov chain Monte Carlo method for parameter estimation is given and may be used with sparse data obtained by computerized adaptive testing. Both simulation studies and real data analysis are carried out to demonstrate the applicability of the new model.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun Wang & Zhewen Fan & Hua-Hua Chang & Jeffrey A. Douglas, 2013. "A Semiparametric Model for Jointly Analyzing Response Times and Accuracy in Computerized Testing," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(4), pages 381-417, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:381-417
    DOI: 10.3102/1076998612461831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/1076998612461831
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/1076998612461831?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey Rouder & Dongchu Sun & Paul Speckman & Jun Lu & Duo Zhou, 2003. "A hierarchical bayesian statistical framework for response time distributions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 589-606, December.
    2. Jeffrey Douglas & Michael Kosorok & Betty Chewning, 1999. "A latent variable model for discrete multivariate psychometric waiting times," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 69-82, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chun Wang & Gongjun Xu & Zhuoran Shang, 2018. "A Two-Stage Approach to Differentiating Normal and Aberrant Behavior in Computer Based Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 223-254, March.
    2. Hua-Hua Chang, 2015. "Psychometrics Behind Computerized Adaptive Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Chen, Haiqin & De Boeck, Paul & Grady, Matthew & Yang, Chien-Lin & Waldschmidt, David, 2018. "Curvilinear dependency of response accuracy on response time in cognitive tests," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 16-23.
    4. Maria Bolsinova & Jesper Tijmstra, 2019. "Modeling Differences Between Response Times of Correct and Incorrect Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 1018-1046, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wim van der Linden, 2007. "A Hierarchical Framework for Modeling Speed and Accuracy on Test Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 287-308, September.
    2. Tong-Yu Lu & Wai-Yin Poon & Siu Cheung, 2014. "A Unified Framework for the Comparison of Treatments with Ordinal Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 605-620, October.
    3. Gerard Breukelen, 2005. "Psychometrics, Psychonomics, Psychonometrics: Rejoinder To Rouder And Wenger," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 389-391, June.
    4. Dora Matzke & Conor Dolan & William Batchelder & Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, 2015. "Bayesian Estimation of Multinomial Processing Tree Models with Heterogeneity in Participants and Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 205-235, March.
    5. Chun Wang & Gongjun Xu & Zhuoran Shang, 2018. "A Two-Stage Approach to Differentiating Normal and Aberrant Behavior in Computer Based Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 223-254, March.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:622-635 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Brandon Turner & Trisha Zandt, 2014. "Hierarchical Approximate Bayesian Computation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 185-209, April.
    8. Jeffrey Rouder, 2005. "The applicability of deadline models: Comment on Glickman, Gray, and Morales (2005)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 427-430, September.
    9. Jeffrey Rouder & Jordan Province & Richard Morey & Pablo Gomez & Andrew Heathcote, 2015. "The Lognormal Race: A Cognitive-Process Model of Choice and Latency with Desirable Psychometric Properties," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 491-513, June.
    10. Michael D. Lee, 2018. "Bayesian methods for analyzing true-and-error models," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(6), pages 622-635, November.
    11. Peter W. Rijn & Usama S. Ali, 2018. "A Generalized Speed–Accuracy Response Model for Dichotomous Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 109-131, March.
    12. Peter Craigmile & Mario Peruggia & Trisha Van Zandt, 2010. "Hierarchical Bayes Models for Response Time Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 613-632, December.
    13. Jochen Ranger & Christoph König & Benjamin W. Domingue & Jörg-Tobias Kuhn & Andreas Frey, 2024. "A Multidimensional Partially Compensatory Response Time Model on Basis of the Log-Normal Distribution," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 49(3), pages 431-464, June.
    14. Jochen Ranger & Jörg-Tobias Kuhn, 2015. "Modeling Information Accumulation in Psychological Tests Using Item Response Times," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 40(3), pages 274-306, June.
    15. Hua-Hua Chang, 2015. "Psychometrics Behind Computerized Adaptive Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Jochen Ranger & Jorg-Tobias Kuhn, 2012. "A flexible latent trait model for response times in tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 31-47, January.
    17. T. Loeys & Y. Rosseel & K. Baten, 2011. "A Joint Modeling Approach for Reaction Time and Accuracy in Psycholinguistic Experiments," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 487-503, July.
    18. Maria Bolsinova & Jesper Tijmstra, 2019. "Modeling Differences Between Response Times of Correct and Incorrect Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 1018-1046, December.
    19. Matthias von Davier & Lale Khorramdel & Qiwei He & Hyo Jeong Shin & Haiwen Chen, 2019. "Developments in Psychometric Population Models for Technology-Based Large-Scale Assessments: An Overview of Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(6), pages 671-705, December.
    20. Chun Wang & Gongjun Xu & Zhuoran Shang & Nathan Kuncel, 2018. "Detecting Aberrant Behavior and Item Preknowledge: A Comparison of Mixture Modeling Method and Residual Method," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(4), pages 469-501, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:381-417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.