Lyu Weicong, Bolt Daniel
College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA.
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
J Intell. 2024 Jul 31;12(8):74. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence12080074.
We provide an alternative psychometric perspective on the empirical statistical dependencies observed between response accuracy residuals (RARs) and response time residuals (RTRs) in the context of the van der Linden model. This perspective emphasizes the RAR (or parts of the RAR) as being exogenous and having a directional influence on response time. Our simple and theoretically justifiable perspective adds to previous joint response time/accuracy models and comports with recent generalizations of the D-diffusion IRT model incorporating person-by-item interactions, and thus similarly reproduces many of the recently highlighted empirical findings concerning the associations between RARs and RTRs. Using both empirical and simulation-based results, we show how our psychometric perspective has both applied and interpretational implications. Specifically, it would suggest that (1) studies of item parameter estimate heterogeneity in relation to response times may reflect more of a psychometric artifact (due to the exogenous effects of the RARs) as opposed to providing insights about the response process (e.g., the application of different response strategies) and that (2) efforts to use RTRs as indicators of latent proficiency should attend to the anticipated interactions between the latent proficiency and RAR on response times. The validity of our psychometric perspective against alternatives likely relies on appeals to theory; the best perspective to take may vary depending on the test setting.
我们从心理测量学的另一个角度,审视了在范德林登模型背景下,反应准确性残差(RARs)和反应时间残差(RTRs)之间观察到的经验统计依赖性。该角度强调RAR(或RAR的部分)是外生的,并且对反应时间有方向性影响。我们简单且理论上合理的角度补充了先前的联合反应时间/准确性模型,并与最近纳入人-项目交互的D-扩散IRT模型的推广相一致,因此同样再现了许多最近突出的关于RARs和RTRs之间关联的实证研究结果。通过实证和基于模拟的结果,我们展示了我们的心理测量学角度如何具有应用和解释意义。具体而言,它表明:(1)关于项目参数估计异质性与反应时间关系的研究,可能更多地反映了一种心理测量学假象(由于RARs的外生效应),而不是提供有关反应过程的见解(例如,不同反应策略的应用);(2)将RTRs用作潜在熟练度指标的努力,应关注潜在熟练度与RAR对反应时间的预期交互作用。我们的心理测量学角度相对于其他角度的有效性,可能依赖于对理论的诉求;最佳角度可能因测试设置而异。