Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42420625›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Joint partial credit and time model.

Inhan Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Inhan KangDepartment of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts, Yonsei University, 403 Widang Hall, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Republic of Korea. qpsy@yonsei.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4601-9332

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Joint modeling of responses and response times (RTs) has become a mainstream approach in psychological and educational measurement, offering a deeper understanding of test-taking behavior and more precise estimates of individual performance. However, despite its growing popularity, little is known about RT patterns under partial credit settings. When RTs vary across score categories, psychometric models may benefit from incorporating this heterogeneity to improve measurement accuracy. This article introduces the Joint Partial Credit and Time Model (JPCTM), a new measurement model for partial credit scores and RTs. The JPCTM builds upon the hierarchical framework (van der Linden, 2007) but employs the generalized partial credit model (Muraki, 1992) for scores and a log-normal distribution for RTs. Because item-specific intercepts and speed factors are not anticipated to fully account for heterogeneity in RTs across score categories, we extend the model with 1) varying intercepts (VI) across score categories and/or 2) cross loadings (CL) from the latent ability to RTs. A simulation study demonstrated that the JPCTM with VI and CL recovers its parameters well under a range of conditions. Empirical applications to two real-world datasets revealed that 1) RTs systematically differ across tests, items, and score categories, 2) the proposed model captures these differences, and 3) the standard errors of ability estimates can be reduced by jointly modeling partial credit scores and RTs. Overall, the JPCTM provides a comprehensive description of partial credit data with RTs and yields more stable measures of individual performance than partial credit models based solely on response scores.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalModels, StatisticalPsychometricsReaction TimeComputer SimulationHumansHierarchical frameworkItem response theoryPartial creditPsychological and educational measurementResponse times

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.