This article describes a general item response theory model for personality items that allows the information provided by the item response times to be used to estimate the individual trait levels. The submodel describing the item response times is a modification of Thissen's log-linear model and is based on the distance-difficulty hypothesis in personality measurement. First, the procedures for fitting the model and assessing the goodness of fit are described. Second, the gain in the precision of estimating the individual trait levels when the information provided by the response times is used is assessed. Finally, all the developments in this article are illustrated by means of an empirical example.
Bartram, D., & Power, M. (1983). An examination of response latencies as indices of faking on the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Report ERG/ MSC/83/12). Hull, UK: Ergonomic Research Group, University of Hull .
2.
Bock, R.D., & Mislevy, R.J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 431-444.
3.
Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development . New York: Wiley.
4.
Casey, M.M., & Tryon, W.W. (2001). Validating a double-press method for computer administration of personality inventory items. Psychological Assessment, 13, 521-530.
5.
Coombs, C.H. (1964). A theory of data. New York : Wiley.
6.
Dunn, T.G., Lushene, R.E., & O'Neil, H.F. (1972). Complete automation of the MMPI and a study of its response latencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 381-387.
7.
Eaton, A.M., & Fiske, D.W. (1971). Item stability as related to implicit set and subject-item distance. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 37, 259-266.
8.
Eisenberg, P., & Wesman, A.G. (1941). Consistency in response and logical interpretation of psychoneurotic inventory items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 32, 321-338.
9.
Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1963). Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. London: University of London Press.
10.
Eysenck, S.B.G., Eysenck, H.J., & Barrett, P.T. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.
11.
Fekken, G.C., & Holden, R.R. (1992). Response latency evidence for viewing personality traits as schema indicators. Journal of Research in Personality , 26, 103-120.
12.
Fekken, G.C., & Jackson, D.N. (1988). Predicting consistent psychological test item responses: A comparison of models. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 873-882.
13.
Ferrando, P.J. (1994). Fitting item response models to the EPI-A impulsivity subscale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 118-127.
14.
Ferrando, P.J. (2006). Person-item distance and response time: An empirical study in personality measurement. Psicológica, 27, 137-148.
15.
Finch, J.F., & West, S.G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439-485.
16.
Furneaux, W.D. (1960). Intellectual abilities and problem solving behaviour . In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), Handbook of abnormal psychology (pp. 167-192). London: Pitman.
Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York : McGraw-Hill.
19.
Hambleton, R.K. (2004). Theory, methods, and practices in testing for the 21st century. Psicothema, 16, 696-701.
20.
Hanley, C. (1962). The ``difficulty'' of a personality inventory item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 577-584.
21.
Holden, R.R., & Fekken, G.C. (1993). Can personality test item response latencies have construct validity? Issues of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 243-248.
22.
Holden, R.R., & Hibbs, N. (1995). Incremental validity of response latencies for detecting fakers on a personality test. Journal of Research in Personality, 3, 362-372.
23.
Jackson, D.N. (1986). The process of responding in personality assessment . In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 123-143). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
24.
Kendall, M., & Stuart, A. (1973). The advanced theory of statistics, Vol. 2. London: Griffin .
25.
Kuiper, N.A. (1981). Convergent evidence for the self as a prototype: The inverted-U effect for self and other judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 438-443.
26.
Kuncel, R.B. (1973). Response processes and relative location of subject and item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 545-563.
27.
Kuncel, R.B. (1977). The subject-item interaction in itemmetric research . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 665-678.
28.
Kuncel, R.B., & Fiske, D.W. (1974). Stability of response process and response. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 743-755.
29.
Kyllonen, P.C. (1991). Principles for creating a computerized test battery . Intelligence, 15, 1-15.
30.
Mislevy, R.J., & Bock, R.D. (1990). BILOG 3 item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
31.
Mislevy, R.J., & Sheehan, K.M. (1989). The role of collateral information about examinees in item parameter estimation. Psychometrika, 54, 661-679.
32.
Nowakowska, M. (1983). Quantitative psychology: Some chosen problems and new ideas. Amsterdam: North-Holland .
33.
Popham, S.M., & Holden, R.R. (1990). Assessing MMPI constructs through the measurement of response latencies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 469-478.
34.
Reise, S.P., & Waller, N.G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 45-58.
35.
Rogers, T.B. (1973). Toward a definition of the difficulty of a personality item. Psychological Reports, 33, 159-166.
36.
Rogers, T.B. (1974). An analysis of the stages underlying the process of responding to personality items. Acta Psychologica, 38, 205-213.
37.
Roskam, E.E. (1997). Models for speed and time-limit tests. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 187-208). New York: Springer.
38.
Scheiblechner, H. (1979). Specifically objective stochastic latent mechanisms . Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 19, 18-38.
39.
Siem, F.M. (1998). Metatraits and self-schemata: Same or different?Journal of Personality, 66, 783-803.
40.
Storms, G., & Delbeke, L. (1992). The irrelevance of distributional assumptions on reaction times in multidimensional scaling of same/different judgment tasks . Psychometrika, 57, 599-614.
41.
Tatsuoka, K.K., & Tatsuoka, M.M. (1980). A model for incorporating response-time data in scoring achievement tests. In D. J.Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1979 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 236-256). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology.
42.
Tetrick, L.E. (1989). An exploratory investigation of response latency in computerized administration of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale . Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1281-1287.
43.
Thissen, D. (1983). Timed testing: An approach using item response theory. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 179-203). New York: Academic Press.
44.
Thissen, T., & Orlando, M. (2001). Item response theory for items scores in two categories . In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 73-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
Tyler, T.A. (1968). Response stability, person distance, and homogeneity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago .
46.
van der Linden, W.J., & van Krimpen-Stoop, E.M.L.A. (2003). Using response times to detect aberrant responses in computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 68, 251-265.
47.
van der Linden, W.J., Scrams, D.J., & Schnipke, D.L. (1999). Using response-time constraints to control for differential speededness in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 195-210.
48.
Vickers, D. (1980). Discrimination. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 25-72). New York: Academic Press.
49.
Vigil, A., & Codorniu, M.J. (2004). Aggression and inhibition deficits, the role of functional and dysfunctional impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1431-1440.
50.
Waller, N.G., Tellegen, A., McDonald, R.P., & Lykken, D.T. (1996). Exploring nonlinear models in personality assessment: Development and validation of a negative emotionality scale. Journal of Personality, 64, 545-576.
51.
White, P.O. (1973). Individual differences in speed, accuracy and persistence: A mathematical model for problem solving. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), The measurement of intelligence (pp. 246-260). Lancaster, United Kingdom: MTP Press.
