IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v68y2003i4p563-583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the use of heterogeneous thresholds ordinal regression models to account for individual differences in response style

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Johnson

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Johnson, 2003. "On the use of heterogeneous thresholds ordinal regression models to account for individual differences in response style," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 563-583, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:68:y:2003:i:4:p:563-583
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02295612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02295612
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02295612?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rossi P. E & Gilula Z. & Allenby G. M, 2001. "Overcoming Scale Usage Heterogeneity: A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 20-31, 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. Anne Thissen-Roe & David Thissen, 2013. "A Two-Decision Model for Responses to Likert-Type Items," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(5), pages 522-547, October.
    2. Bettina Grün & Sara Dolnicar, 2016. "Response style corrected market segmentation for ordinal data," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 729-741, December.
    3. Timothy R. Johnson & Daniel M. Bolt, 2010. "On the Use of Factor-Analytic Multinomial Logit Item Response Models to Account for Individual Differences in Response Style," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 35(1), pages 92-114, February.
    4. Rosaria Simone & Gerhard Tutz, 2018. "Modelling uncertainty and response styles in ordinal data," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 72(3), pages 224-245, August.
    5. de Jong, M.G., 2006. "Response bias in international marketing research," Other publications TiSEM 5d4031be-97b5-4db3-962b-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Timothy Johnson, 2007. "Discrete Choice Models for Ordinal Response Variables: A Generalization of the Stereotype Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 489-504, December.
    7. Kim, Jung Seek & Ratchford, Brian T., 2013. "A Bayesian multivariate probit for ordinal data with semiparametric random-effects," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 192-208.
    8. Jay Verkuilen & Michael Smithson, 2012. "Mixed and Mixture Regression Models for Continuous Bounded Responses Using the Beta Distribution," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(1), pages 82-113, February.
    9. Gerhard Tutz, 2021. "Hierarchical Models for the Analysis of Likert Scales in Regression and Item Response Analysis," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(1), pages 18-35, April.
    10. Nino Hardt & Alex Varbanov & Greg M. Allenby, 2016. "Monetizing Ratings Data for Product Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 713-726, September.
    11. Gerhard Tutz, 2020. "Modelling heterogeneity: on the problem of group comparisons with logistic regression and the potential of the heterogeneous choice model," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 14(3), pages 517-542, September.
    12. Martijn Jong & Jan-Benedict Steenkamp, 2010. "Finite Mixture Multilevel Multidimensional Ordinal IRT Models for Large Scale Cross-Cultural Research," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 3-32, March.
    13. Omori, Yasuhiro & Miyawaki, Koji, 2010. "Tobit model with covariate dependent thresholds," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 2736-2752, November.
    14. Fang Liu & Xiaojing Wang & Roeland Hancock & Ming-Hui Chen, 2022. "Bayesian Model Assessment for Jointly Modeling Multidimensional Response Data with Application to Computerized Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1290-1317, December.
    15. Pieter Schoonees & Michel Velden & Patrick Groenen, 2015. "Constrained Dual Scaling for Detecting Response Styles in Categorical Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 968-994, December.
    16. Gerhard Tutz & Moritz Berger, 2016. "Response Styles in Rating Scales," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 41(3), pages 239-268, June.
    17. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    18. Roberto Colombi & Sabrina Giordano & Gerhard Tutz, 2021. "A Rating Scale Mixture Model to Account for the Tendency to Middle and Extreme Categories," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(6), pages 682-716, December.
    19. Dirk Lubbe & Christof Schuster, 2020. "A Scaled Threshold Model for Measuring Extreme Response Style," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(1), pages 86-107, February.

    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. Maria Iannario, 2015. "Detecting latent components in ordinal data with overdispersion by means of a mixture distribution," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 977-987, May.
    2. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    3. Wang, Luming & Finn, Adam, 2014. "A psychometric theory that measures up to marketing reality: An adapted Many Faceted IRT model," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 93-102.
    4. Tuck Siong Chung & Roland T. Rust & Michel Wedel, 2009. "My Mobile Music: An Adaptive Personalization System for Digital Audio Players," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 52-68, 01-02.
    5. Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
    6. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    7. Romina Gambacorta & Maria Iannario, 2013. "Measuring Job Satisfaction with CUB Models," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 27(2), pages 198-224, June.
    8. Kim, Jung Seek & Ratchford, Brian T., 2013. "A Bayesian multivariate probit for ordinal data with semiparametric random-effects," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 192-208.
    9. Franco Peracchi & Claudio Rossetti, 2013. "The heterogeneous thresholds ordered response model: identification and inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(3), pages 703-722, June.
    10. Martijn G. de Jong & Donald R. Lehmann & Oded Netzer, 2012. "State-Dependence Effects in Surveys," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 838-854, September.
    11. Marc R. Dotson & Joachim Büschken & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Explaining Preference Heterogeneity with Mixed Membership Modeling," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 407-426, March.
    12. Corrado, L. & Weeks, M., 2010. "Identification Strategies in Survey Response Using Vignettes," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1031, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    14. Allenby, Greg M., 2017. "Structural forecasts for marketing data," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 433-441.
    15. Cheng, Yung-Hsiang & Chen, Ssu-Yun, 2015. "Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public transportation systems," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 386-403.
    16. Bettina Grün & Sara Dolnicar, 2016. "Response style corrected market segmentation for ordinal data," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 729-741, December.
    17. Ando, Tomohiro, 2009. "Bayesian factor analysis with fat-tailed factors and its exact marginal likelihood," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(8), pages 1717-1726, September.
    18. Maria A. Cunha-e-Sa & Luis C. Nunes & Vladimir Otrachshenko, 2012. "Protest attitudes and stated preferences: evidence on scale usage heterogeneity," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp569, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    19. Yuchi Zhang & David Godes, 2018. "Learning from Online Social Ties," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 425-444, May.
    20. Dubnovitskaya, Anastasia & Furmanov, Kirill, 2023. "Job satisfaction in Russia: Wages, working conditions and promotion opportunities," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 72, pages 121-139.

    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:spr:psycho:v:68:y:2003:i:4:p:563-583. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.