Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T10:12:06.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Interpretations of the Discrimination Parameter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Francis Tuerlinckx and
Paul De Boeck
Francis Tuerlinckx*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Leuven
Paul De Boeck
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Leuven
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to to Francis Tuerlinckx, Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: francis.tuerlinckx@psy.kuleuven.be
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we propose two interpretations for the discrimination parameter in the two-parameter logistic model (2PLM). The interpretations are based on the relation between the 2PLM and two stochastic models. In the first interpretation, the 2PLM is linked to a diffusion model so that the probability of absorption equals the 2PLM. The discrimination parameter is the distance between the two absorbing boundaries and therefore the amount of information that has to be collected before a response to an item can be given. For the second interpretation, the 2PLM is connected to a specific type of race model. In the race model, the discrimination parameter is inversely related to the dependency of the information used in the decision process. Extended versions of both models with person-to-person variability in the difficulty parameter are considered. When fitted to a data set, it is shown that a generalization of the race model that allows for dependency between choices and response times (RTs) is the best-fitting model.

Keywords

item response theoryitem discriminationtwo-parameter logistic modeldiffusion modelrace modelresponse times

Information

Type
Theory and Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , December 2005, pp. 629 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 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

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H. (1977). On entropy maximization principle, In Krishnaiah, P.R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the symposium on applications of statistics, (pp. 27–47). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models, In Ford, F.M., and Novick, M.R. (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores, (pp. 397–424). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D.M., Craik, K.H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colonius, H. (1981). A new interpretation of stochastic test models. Psychometrika, 46, 223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D.R., Miller, H.D. (1970). The theory of stochastic processes. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 260–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dzhafarov, E.N. (1993). Grice-representability of response time distributions. Psychometrika, 58, 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebel, R.L., Frisbie, D.A. (1986). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embretson, S.E. (1999). Generating items during testing: Psychometric issues and models. Psychometrika, 64, 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G.H., Molenaar, I.W. (1995). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, G.R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation. Psychological Review, 75, 359–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampson, S.E., John, O.P., Goldberg, L.R. (1986). Category breadth and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetry in judgments of trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hougaard, P. (1986a). Survival methods for heterogeneous populations derived from stable distributions. Biometrika, 73, 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, P. (1986b). A class of multivariate failure time distributions. Biometrika, 73, 671–678.Google Scholar
Joe, H. (1997). Multivariate models and dependence concepts. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Klein, S.B. & Loftus, J. (1993). The mental representation of trait and autobiographical knowledge about the self. In Srull, T.K., and Wyer, R.S. Jr. (Eds.), The mental representation of trait and autobiographical representation of the self (Advances in social cognition, Vol. V), (pp. 1–49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klein, S.B., Loftus, J., Trafton, J.G., Fuhrman, R.W. (1992). Use of exemplars and abstractions in trait judgments: A model of trait knowledge about the self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 739–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F.M., Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Luce, R.D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marley, A.A.J., Colonius, H. (1992). The “horse race” random utility model for choice probabilities and reaction times, and its competing risks interpretation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, C.E., Searle, S.R. (2001). Generalized, linear, and mixed models. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Naylor, J.C., Smith, A.F.M. (1982). Applications of a method for the efficient computation of posterior distributions. Applied Statistics, 31, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R. (1985). Theoretical interpretations of the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. Psychological Review, 92, 212–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliff, R. (2002). Diffusion and random walk models. In Smelser, N.J., and Baltes, P.B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, (pp. 3668–3673). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Rouder, J. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 438–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ratcliff, R., Van Zandt, T., McKoon, G. (1999). Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychological Review, 106, 261–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (1999). SAS System V8 for Windows. Carey, NC: Computer program, SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Stram, D.O., Lee, J.W. (1994). Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects mode. Biometrics, 50, 1171–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuerlinckx, F. (2004). The efficient computation of the distribution function of the diffusion process. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 702–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuerlinckx, F. & De Boeck, P. (2004). Stochastic models for personality trait judgments, Unpublished manuscript, University of Leuven.Google Scholar