Although person-fit analysis has a long-standing tradition within item response theory, it has been applied in combination with dominance response models almost exclusively. In this article, a popular log likelihood-based parametric person-fit statistic under the framework of the generalized graded unfolding model is used. Results from a simulation study indicate that the person-fit statistic performed relatively well in detecting midpoint response style patterns and not so well in detecting extreme response style patterns.
AndrichD. (1988). The application of an unfolding model of the PIRT type to the measurement of attitude. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 33-51.
2.
AndrichD. (1996). A hyperbolic response cosine latent trait model for unfolding polytomous responses: Reconciling Thurstone and Likert methodologies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 49, 347-365.
3.
AndrichD.LuoG. (1993). A hyperbolic cosine trait model for unfolding dichotomous single-stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 253-276.
4.
BaumgartnerH.SteenkampJ. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-156.
5.
ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.ChanK.-Y.DrasgowF.WilliamsB. (2001). Fitting Item Response Theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 523-562.
6.
CoombsC. H. (1964). A theory of data. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press.
7.
de la TorreJ.DengW. (2008). Improving person-fit assessment by correcting the ability estimate and its reference distribution. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 159-177.
8.
DeSarboW. S.HoffmanD. L. (1986). Simple and weighted unfolding threshold models for the spatial representation of binary choice data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 247-264.
9.
DrasgowF.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right!Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 465-476.
10.
DrasgowF.LevineM. V.TsienS.WilliamsB.MeadA. D. (1995). Fitting polytomous Item Response Theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143-165.
11.
DrasgowF.LevineM. V.WilliamsE. A. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67-86.
12.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
ForandN. R.DeRubeisR. J. (2014). Extreme response style and symptom return after depression treatment: The role of positive extreme responding. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 500-509.
14.
HoijtinkH. (1990). A latent trait model for dichotomous choice data. Psychometrika, 55, 641-656.
15.
HoijtinkH. (1991). The measurement of latent traits by proximity items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 153-169.
16.
HoijtinkH. (1993). The analysis of dichotomous preference data: Models based on Clyde H. Coombs’ parallelogram model. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 42, 9-18.
17.
International Test Commission. (2013). ITC guidelines for quality control in scoring, test analysis, and reporting of test scores [Computer software manual]. Available from www.intestcom.org
18.
KarabatsosG. (2003). Comparing the aberrant response detection performance of thirty-six person-fit statistics. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 277-298.
19.
KierujN. D.MoorsG. (2010). Variations in response style behavior by response scale format in attitude research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 320-342.
20.
LaHuisD. M.ClarkP.O’BrienE. (2011). An examination of I Response Theory item fit indices for the Graded Response Model. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 10-23.
21.
LevashinaJ.WeekleyJ. A.RoulinN.HauckE. (2014). Using blatant extreme responding for detecting faking in high-stakes selection: Construct validity, relationship with general mental ability, and subgroup differences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 371-383.
22.
LikertR. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1-55.
23.
LuoG. (2000). Joint maximum likelihood estimation for the hyperbolic cosine model for single stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 33-49.
24.
MeijerR. R. (1996). Person-fit research: An introduction. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 3-8.
25.
MeijerR. R.SijtsmaK. (2001). Methodology review: Evaluating person fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 107-135.
26.
MolenaarI. W.HoijtinkH. (1990). The many null distributions of person fit indices. Psychometrika, 55, 75-106.
27.
NeringM. L. (1995). The distribution of person fit using true and estimated person parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 121-129.
28.
NeringM. L. (1997). The distribution of indexes of person-fit within the computerized adaptive testing environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 115-127.
29.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitude (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
PetersonR. A.Rhi-PerezP.AlbaumG. (2014). A cross-national comparison of extreme response style measures. International Journal of Market Research, 56, 89-110.
31.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria: R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available from https://www.R-project.org/
32.
ReiseS. P. (1995). Scoring method and the detection of person misfit in a personality assessment context. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 213-229.
33.
RobertsJ. S.DonoghueJ. R.LaughlinJ. E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 3-32.
34.
RobertsJ. S.DonoghueJ. R.LaughlinJ. E. (2002). Characteristics of MML/EAP parameter estimates in the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 192-207.
35.
RobertsJ. S.FangH.CuiW.WangY. (2006). GGUM2004: A Windows-based program to estimate parameters in the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 64-65.
36.
RobertsJ. S.LaughlinJ. E. (1996). A unidimensional item response theory model for unfolding responses from a graded disagree-agree response scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 231-255.
37.
RobertsJ. S.ThompsonV. M. (2011). Marginal maximum a posteriori item parameter estimation for the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 259-279.
St-OngeC.ValoisP.AbdousB.GermainS. (2011). Accuracy of person-fit statistics: A Monte Carlo study of the influence of aberrance rates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 419-432.
43.
TayL.AliU. S.DrasgowF.WilliamsB. (2011). Fitting IRT models to dichotomous and polytomous data: Assessing the relative model-data fit of ideal point and dominance models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 280-295.
44.
TendeiroJ. N.MeijerR. R.NiessenA. S. M. (2015). PerFit: An R package for person-fit analysis in IRT. Journal of Statistical Software.
45.
ThissenD.SteinbergL. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567-577.
46.
ThurstoneL. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. The American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-554.
47.
ThurstoneL. L. (1929). Theory of attitude measurement. Psychological Review, 36, 222-241.
48.
van Krimpen-StoopE. M. L. A.MeijerR. R. (1999). The null distribution of person-fit statistics for conventional and adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 327-345.
49.
von DavierM.KhorramdelL. (2013). Differentiating response styles and construct-related responses: A new IRT approach using bifactor and second-order models. In MillsapR. E.van der ArkL. A.BoltD. M.WoodsC. M. (Eds.), New developments in quantitative psychology: Presentations from the 77th annual psychometric society meeting (pp. 463-487). New York, NY: Springer.
50.
WangW.de la TorreJ.DrasgowF. (2015). MCMC GGUM: A new computer program for estimating unfolding IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39, 160-161.
51.
WangW.TayL.DrasgowF. (2013). Detecting differential item functioning of polytomous items for an ideal point response process. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 316-335.
52.
WeekersA. M.MeijerR. R. (2008). Scaling response processes on personality items using unfolding and dominance models. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 65-77.
53.
WorthyM. (1969). Note on scoring midpoint responses in extreme response-style scores. Psychological Reports, 24, 189-190.
