A multidimensional item response theory model that accounts for response style factors is presented. The model, a multidimensional extension of Bock's nominal response model, is shown to allow for the study and control of response style effects in ordered rating scale data so as to reduce bias in measurement of the intended trait. In the current application, the model is also used to investigate response style as an underlying cause of differential item functioning. The approach is illustrated using the item responses of cigarette smokers to the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives, a self-report measure of tobacco dependence.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification . IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716-723.
2.
Bachman, J.G., & O'Malley, P.M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-White differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 491-509.
3.
Baumgartner, J.E.M., & Steenkamp, H. (2001). Response style in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-156.
4.
Berg, I.A., & Collier, J.S. (1953). Personality and group differences in extreme response sets. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13, 164-169.
5.
Bock, R.D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
6.
Bock, R.D. (1997). The nominal categories model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 33-49). New York: Springer-Verlag .
7.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike's information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345-370.
8.
Bradley, R.A., & Terry, M.E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs, I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39, 324-345.
9.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross cultural research using structural equations modeling . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
10.
Clark, I., III (2000). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 137-152.
11.
Cooke, D.J., & Michie, C. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised. Psychological Assessment, 9, 3-14.
12.
Cronbach, L.J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475-494.
13.
Cronbach, L.J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-31.
14.
Eid, M., & Rauber, M. (2000). Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 20-30.
15.
Gollwitzer, M., Eid, M., & Jürgensen, R. (2005). Response styles in the assessment of anger expression . Psychological Assessment, 17, 56-69.
16.
Gomez, R., Cooper, A., & Gomez, A. (2005). An item response theory analysis of the Carver and White (1994) BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1093-1103.
17.
Greenacre, M., & Blasius, J. (2006). Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods . Boca-Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
18.
Greenleaf, E.A. (1992a). Improving rating scale measures by detecting and correcting bias components in some response styles. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 176-188.
Hall, T.W., Reise, S.P., & Haviland, M.G. (2007). An item response theory analysis of the Spiritual Assessment Inventory. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17, 157-178.
21.
Harzing, A.-W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6, 243-266.
22.
Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H.C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296-309.
23.
Johnson, T.R., & Bolt, D.M. (2008). 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.
24.
Lee, C., & Green, R.T. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral intentions model. Journal of International Business Studies , 22, 289-305.
25.
Lewis, N.A., & Taylor, J.A. (1955). Anxiety and extreme preferences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 15, 111-116.
26.
Luce, R.D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis . New York: Wiley.
27.
Maij-de Meij, A.M., Kelderman, H., & van der Flier, H. (2008). Fitting a mixture item response theory model to personality questionnaire data: Characterizing latent classes and investigating possibilities for improving prediction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 611-631.
28.
Marin, G., Gamba, R.J., & Marin, B.V. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics: The role of acculturation and education. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 498-509.
29.
Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
30.
Messick, S. (1991). Psychology and methodology of response styles . In R. E. Snow & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), Improving inquiry in social science: A volume in honor of Lee J. Cronbach (pp. 161-200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Moors, G. (2003). Diagnosing response style behavior by means of a latent-class factor approach: Socio-demographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination reexamined. Quality and Quantity, 37, 277-302.
32.
Moors, G. (2004). Facts and artifacts in the comparison of attitudes among ethnic minorities. A multigroup latent class structure model with adjustment for response style behavior. European Sociological Review , 20, 303-320.
33.
Oshima, T.C., Davey, T., & Lee, K. (2000). Multidimensional linking: Four practical approaches . Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 357-373.
34.
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
35.
Piper, M., Piasecki, T.M., Federman, E.B., Bolt, D.M., Smith, S.S., Fiore, M.C., et al. (2004). A multiple motives approach to tobacco dependence: The Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM-68) . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 139-154.
36.
Prediger, D.J. (1999). Basic structure of work-relevant abilities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 173-184.
37.
Reise, S.P., & Haviland, M.G. (2005). Item response theory and the measurement of clinical change. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 228-238.
38.
Rost, J., Carstensen, C.H., & von Davier, M. (1999). Sind die Big Five Rasch-skalierbar? Eine Reanalyse de NEO-FFI Normierungsdaten [Are the Big Five Rasch-scalable? A reanalysis of the NEO-FFI normative data]. Diagnostica, 45, 119-127.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
41.
Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIFv2.0b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood ratio tests for differential item functioning. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
42.
Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567-577.
43.
van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y.H., & Verhallen, T.M.M. (2004). Response style in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346-360.
Vermunt, J.K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Technical guide for Latent Gold 4.0: Basic and advanced. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations.
46.
Vermunt, J.K., & Magidson, J. (2006). Latent GOLD 4.0 and IRT modeling. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from http://www.statisticalinnovations.com/products/LGIRT.pdf
47.
Warrens, M.J., & Heiser, W.J. (2006). Scaling unidimensional models with multiple correspondence analysis. In M. Greenacre & J. Blasius (Eds.), Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods (pp. 219-236). London: Chapman & Hall.
48.
Wollack, J.A., Bolt, D.M., Cohen, A.S., & Lee, Y.-S. (2002). Recovery of item parameters in the nominal response model: A comparison of marginal maximum likelihood estimation and Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 337-350.
