Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8wtlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-14T16:53:58.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Pearson-Type-VII Item Response Model for Assessing Person Fluctuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Pere J. Ferrando
Pere J. Ferrando*
Affiliation:
‘Rovira i Virgili’ University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Pere Joan Ferrando, Universidad 'Rovira i Virgili,' Facultad de Psicologia, Carretera Valls s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Spain. E-mail: perejoan.ferrando@urv.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using Lumsden’s Thurstonian fluctuation model as a starting point, this paper attempts to develop a unidimensional item response theory model intended for binary personality items. Under some additional assumptions, a new model is obtained in which the item characteristic curves are defined by a cumulative Pearson-Type-VII distribution, and the person response curves are two-parameter normal ogives. Procedures for fitting the new model are proposed. Furthermore, the relations between individual fluctuation and scalability are discussed, and a scalability index based on the new model is proposed. All the developments in this paper are illustrated using two empirical examples.

Keywords

Personality measurementitem response theoryperson response curveexpected a posteriori estimationperson reliabilityscalability

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 25 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A. (1972). Handbook of mathematical functions, Washington: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
Austin, E.J., Deary, I.J., Gibson, G.J., McGregor, M.J., Dent, J.B. (1998). Individual response spread in self-report scales: Personality correlations and consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, F.B., Kim, S. (2004). Item response theory. Parameter estimation techniques 2nd ed.,, New York: Marcel Dekker.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R.E., Tice, D.M. (1988). Metatraits. Journal of Personality, 56, 571–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R.D., Mislevy, R.J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, W.F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C.H. (1948a). Some hypotheses for the analysis of qualitative variables. Psychological Review, 55, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C.H. (1948b). A rationale for the measurement of traits in individuals. Psychometrika, 13, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombs, C.H. (1964). A theory of data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing, New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Cummings, J.D. (1939). Variability of judgement and ‘steadiness’ of character. British Journal of Psychology, 29, 345–370.Google Scholar
Emons, W.H.M., Sijtsma, K., Meijer, R.R. (2004). Testing hypothesis about the person-response-function in person-fit analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, R.G. (1984). The test-retest index and high F MMPI profiles. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 516–518.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fekken, G.C., Holden, R.R. (1991). The construct validity of person reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrando, P.J. (2004). Person reliability in personality measurement: An item response theory analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, D.W. (1986). The trait concept and the personality questionnaire. In Angleitner, A., Wiggins, J.S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 35–46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, D.W., Rice, L. (1955). Intra-individual response variability. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 217–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, L.R. (1978). The reliability of reliability: The generality and correlates of intraindividual consistency in responses to structured personality inventories. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F., Ostendorf, F. (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7) (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10, 255–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Härdle, W. (1990). Applied nonparametric regression, London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmstader, G.C. (1957). Procedures for obtaining separate set and content components of a test score. Psychometrika, 22, 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershberger, S.L., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N.L. (1995). Traits and metatraits: Their reliability, stability, and shared genetic influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstee, W.K.B., Smid, N.G. (1986). Psychometric models for analysis of data for personality questionnaires. In Angleitner, A., Wiggins, J.S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 166–177). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C.L. (1917). The formation and retention of associations among the insane. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory, New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Jackson, D.N. (1986). The process of responding in personality assessment. In Angleitner, A., Wiggins, J.S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 123–142). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J.A. (1981). The ‘self-disclosure’ and ‘self-presentation’ views of item response dynamics and personality scale validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 761–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N.L., Kotz, S., Balakrishnan, N. (1995). Continuous univariate distributions. (Vol. 2), New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lanning, K. (1991). Consistency, scalability and personality measurement, New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, M.V., Rubin, D.B. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, J. (1977). Person reliability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 477–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, J. (1978). Tests are perfectly reliable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, J. (1980). Variations on a theme by Thurstone. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mislevy, R.J. (1984). Estimating latent distributions. Psychometrika, 49, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R.J. (1986). Bayes modal estimation in item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R.J., Bock, R.D. (1990). BILOG 3 Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models, Mooresville: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
Mitra, S.K., Fiske, D.W. (1956). intraindividual variability as related to test score and item. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosier, C.I. (1942). Psychophysics and mental test theory II: The constant process. Psychological Review, 48, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muraki, E., Engelhard, G. (1985). Full-information item factor analysis: Applications of EAP scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nering, M.L., Meijer, R.R. (1998). A comparison of the person response function and the lz person-fit statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M.R., Jackson, P.H. (1974). Statistical methods for educational and psychological research, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J.O. (1991). Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika, 56, 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S.P. (2000). Using multilevel logistic regression to evaluate person-fit in IRT models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 543–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reise, S.P., Flannery, W.P. (1996). Assessing person-fit on measures of typical performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G. (1993). Traitedness and the assessment of response pattern scalability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S.P., Waller, N.G. (2003). How many IRT parameters does it take to model psychopathology items. Psychological Methods, 8, 164–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneiderman, W. (1980). A personality dimension of consistency versus variability without the use of self-reports or ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, K., Meijer, R.R. (2001). The person response function as a tool in person-fit research. Psychometrika, 66, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strandmark, N.L., Linn, R.L. (1987). A generalized logistic item response model parameterizing test score inappropriateness. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaminathan, H., Gifford, J.A. (1985). Bayesian estimation in the two-parameter logistic model. Psychometrika, 50, 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment. Journal of Personality, 56, 622–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D., Orlando, M. (2001). Item response theory for items scores in two categories. In Thissen, D., Wainer, H. (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 73–140). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D., Wainer, H. (1982). Some standard errors in item response theory. Psychometrika, 47, 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thouless, R.H. (1936). Test unreliability and function fluctuation. British Journal of Psychology, 26, 325–343.Google Scholar
Tice, D.M. (1989). Metatraits: Interitem variance as personality assessment. In Buss, D.M., Cantor, N. (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 194–200). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Trabin, T.E., Weiss, D.J. (1983). The person response curve fit of individuals to item response theory models. In Weiss, D.J. (Eds.), New horizons in testing (pp. 83–108). New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.A. (1968). Response stability, person distance, and homogeneity. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Vale, C.D., & Weiss, D.J. (1975). A study of computer-administered stradaptive testing. Research Report 75-4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Weiss, D.J. (1973). The stratified adaptive computerized ability test. Research Report 73-3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar