For surveys of complex issues that entail multiple steps, multiple reference points, and nongradient attributes (e.g., social inequality), this study proposes a new multiprocess model that integrates ideal-point and dominance approaches into a treelike structure (IDtree). In the IDtree, an ideal-point approach describes an individual’s attitude and then a dominance approach describes their tendency for using extreme response categories. Evaluation of IDtree performance via two empirical data sets showed that the IDtree fit these data better than other models. Furthermore, simulation studies showed a satisfactory parameter recovery of the IDtree. Thus, the IDtree model sheds light on the response processes of a multistage structure.
AndrichD. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02293814
2.
AndrichD. (1995). Hyperbolic cosine latent trait models for unfolding direct responses and pairwise preferences. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900306
3.
AndrichD.LuoG. (1993). A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding dichotomous single-stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(3), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169301700307
4.
BichoN.HawsJ. (2008). At the land’s end: Marine resources and the importance of fluctuations in the coastline in the prehistoric hunter–gatherer economy of Portugal. Quaternary Science Reviews, 27(23–24), 2166–2175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.08.011
5.
BöckenholtU. (2012). Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028111
BöckenholtU.MeiserT. (2017). Response style analysis with threshold and multi-process IRT models: A review and tutorial. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12086
8.
BoltD. M.NewtonJ. R. (2011). Multiscale measurement of extreme response style. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(5), 814–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410388411
9.
CaoM.SongQ. C.TayL. (2018). Detecting curvilinear relationships: A comparison of scoring approaches based on different item response models. International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 178–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1345913
10.
CarpenterB.GelmanA.HoffmanM.LeeD.GoodrichB.BetancourtM.BrubakerM. A.GuoJ.LiP.RiddellA. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01
11.
CarterN. T.DalalD. K.BoyceA. S.O’ConnellM. S.KungM.-C.DelgadoK. M. (2014). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 564–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034688
12.
ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.DrasgowF.RobertsB. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.88
CroweM. L.SleepC. E.CarterN. T.CampbellW. K.MillerJ. D. (2018). Self-esteem and narcissism: An item response theory analysis of curvilinearity. Personality and Individual Differences, 128(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.016
15.
DavisonM. L. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika, 42(4), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295977
16.
De BoeckP.PartchevI. (2012). IRTrees: Tree-based item response models of the GLMM family. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(Code Snippet 1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.c01
European Social Survey Round 8 Data. (2016). Data file edition 2.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway—Data archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS8-2016
GewekeJ. (1992). Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In BernardoJ. M.BergerJ.DawidA. P.SmithJ. F. M. (Eds.), Bayesian statistics 4 (pp. 169–193). Oxford University Press.
IpE. H.ChenS.-H.QuandtS. A. (2016). Analysis of multiple partially ordered responses to belief items with don’t know option. Psychometrika, 81(2), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9432-y
24.
JavarasK. N.RipleyB. D. (2007). An “unfolding” latent variable model for Likert attitude data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(478), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000960
25.
JeonM.De BoeckP. (2016). A generalized item response tree model for psychological assessments. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 1070–1085. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0631-y
26.
JeonM.De BoeckP. (2019). Evaluation on types of invariance in studying extreme response bias with an IRTree approach. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72(3), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12182
27.
JinK.-Y.WangW.-C. (2014). Generalized IRT models for extreme response style. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498876
28.
JooS.-H.LeeP.StarkS. (2016). Evaluating anchor-item designs for concurrent calibration with the GGUM. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616673997
29.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
30.
KhorramdelL.von DavierM. (2014). Measuring response styles across the big five: A multiscale extension of an approach using multinomial processing trees. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.866536
31.
LaHuisD. M.BlackmoreC. E.Bryant-LeesK. B.DelgadoK. (2019). Applying item response trees to personality data in the selection context. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118780310
32.
LakoffG. (2008). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago press.
33.
LaumannE. O.GagnonJ. H.MichaelR. T.MichaelsS. (1992). National health and social life survey, 1992. University of Chicago and National Opinion Research Center [Producer]. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06647.v2
LunnD. J.ThomasA.BestN.SpiegelhalterD. (2000). WinBUGS—A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing, 10(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008929526011
36.
LuoY.JiaoH. (2018). Using the stan program for Bayesian item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(3), 384–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417693666
MeiserT.PlieningerH.HenningerM. (2019). IRTree models with ordinal and multidimensional decision nodes for response styles and trait-based rating responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72(3), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12158
39.
MurakiE. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169201600206
40.
PlieningerH. (2021). Developing and applying IR-Tree models: Guidelines, caveats, and an extension to multiple groups. Organizational Research Methods, 24(3), 654–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120911096
41.
PlieningerH.HeckD. W. (2018). A new model for acquiescence at the interface of psychometrics and cognitive psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(5), 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1469966
RedfordD. B. (2004). From slave to pharaoh: The Black experience of ancient Egypt. JHU Press.
44.
RobertsJ. S. (1998). GUMJML: A program to estimate parameters in the graded unfolding model using a joint maximum likelihood technique. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216980221005
45.
RobertsJ. S. (2001, April). Equating parameter estimates from the generalized graded unfolding model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457187.pdf
46.
RobertsJ. S.DonoghueJ. R.LaughlinJ. E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216000241001
47.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34(1), 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372160
48.
SprattoE. M.LeventhalB. C.BandalosD. L. (2021). Seeing the forest and the trees: Comparison of two IRTree models to investigate the impact of full versus endpoint-only response option labeling. Educational Psychological Measurement, 81(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420918655
49.
TayL.DrasgowF.RoundsJ.WilliamsB. (2009). Fitting measurement models to vocational interest data: Are dominance models ideal?Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1287–1304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015899
50.
TayL.KuykendallL. (2017). Why self-reports of happiness and sadness may not necessarily contradict bipolarity: A psychometric review and proposal. Emotion Review, 9(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916637656
51.
TayL.NgV. (2018). Ideal point modeling of non-cognitive constructs: Review and recommendations for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02423
52.
Thissen-RoeA.ThissenD. (2013). A two-decision model for responses to Likert-type items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(5), 522–547. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998613481500
53.
ThurstoneL. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1086/214483
54.
WangW. (2013). A Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach to the generalized graded unfolding model estimation: The future of non-cognitive measurement [Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/46897
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
