Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37973773›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2024

What Can We Learn from a Semiparametric Factor Analysis of Item Responses and Response Time? An Illustration with the PISA 2015 Data.

Yang Liu, Weimeng Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yang LiuDepartment of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, 3304R Benjamin Bldg, 3942 Campus Dr, College Park, MD,  20742, USA. yliu87@umd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3559-688X
Weimeng WangDepartment of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, 3304R Benjamin Bldg, 3942 Campus Dr, College Park, MD,  20742, USA.

Funding

Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences 1826535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely believed that a joint factor analysis of item responses and response time (RT) may yield more precise ability scores that are conventionally predicted from responses only. For this purpose, a simple-structure factor model is often preferred as it only requires specifying an additional measurement model for item-level RT while leaving the original item response theory (IRT) model for responses intact. The added speed factor indicated by item-level RT correlates with the ability factor in the IRT model, allowing RT data to carry additional information about respondents' ability. However, parametric simple-structure factor models are often restrictive and fit poorly to empirical data, which prompts under-confidence in the suitablity of a simple factor structure. In the present paper, we analyze the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment mathematics data using a semiparametric simple-structure model. We conclude that a simple factor structure attains a decent fit after further parametric assumptions in the measurement model are sufficiently relaxed. Furthermore, our semiparametric model implies that the association between latent ability and speed/slowness is strong in the population, but the form of association is nonlinear. It follows that scoring based on the fitted model can substantially improve the precision of ability scores.

Indexed as

PsychometricsReaction TimeEducational MeasurementFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansMathematicsModels, StatisticalStudentsbootstrapcopulacross-validationcubic splinesfactor analysisitem response theorylocal independencemodel fitpenalized maximum likelihoodPISAresponse time

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.