Skip to main content
Original Article

A Probit Latent State IRT Model With Latent Item-Effect Variables

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000417

Abstract. We present a probit latent state model for dichotomous items with one latent state variable for each occasion of measurement and one latent item-effect variable for each item, except for a reference item. All latent variables are well defined in terms of conditional probabilities. The model offers the possibility to include explanatory variables for the latent states as well as for the latent item-effect variables. We illustrate the model by a data example with the life satisfaction scale of the Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI-R; Fahrenberg, Hampel, & Selg, 1984) assessed at three time points. Allowing for item-effect variables improves model fit considerably and enhances our knowledge about the items. In some applications, this model opens new ways to investigate differential item functioning, and in others it allows to study response styles.

References

  • Biderman, M. (2013). Applications of Bifactor Models to Big Five Data, Master tutorial presented at the 28th Annual Conference of The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H. & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153–168. doi: 10.1007/BF02294533 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Deinzer, R., Steyer, R., Eid, M., Notz, P., Schwenkmezger, P., Ostendorf, F. & Neubauer, A. (1995). Situational effects in trait assessment: The FPI, NEO-FFI, and EPI questionnaires. European Journal of Personality, 9, 1–23. doi: 10.1002/per.2410090102 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DeMars, C. E. (2006). Application of the bi-factor multidimensional item response theory model to testlet-based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 145–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2006.00010.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eid, M. (1995). Modelle der Messung von Personen in Situationen [Models of the assessment of persons in situations]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, PVU. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis for polytomous item responses: Model definition and model selection on the basis of stochastic measurement theory. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 1, 65–85. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241–261. doi: 10.1007/BF02294377 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eid, M. & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65, 245–277. doi: 10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003801.89195.bc First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eid, M. & Zickar, M. J. (2007). Detecting response styles and faking in personality and organizational assessments by mixed Rasch models. In M. von DavierC. H. CarstensenEds., Multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models: Extensions and applications (pp. 255–270). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R. & Selg, H. (1984). Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar – Revised [Freiburg Personality Inventory – Revised]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Filipp, S. H. & Freudenberg, E. (1989). Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositionaler Selbstaufmerksamkeit (SAM). Handanweisung [Questionnaire for assessing dispositional self-awareness]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Geiser, C. & Lockhart, G. (2012). A comparison of four approaches to account for method effects in latent state-trait analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 255. doi: 10.1037/a0026977 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holzinger, K. J. & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54. doi: 10.1007/BF02287965 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meulders, M. & Xie, Y. (2004). Person-by-item predictors. In P. de BoeckM. WilsonEds., Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach (pp. 213–240). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Muthén, B. & Muthén, L. (2012). MPLUS (Version 7.11). [Computer Software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pohl, S. & Steyer, R. (2010). Modeling common traits and method effects in multitrait-multimethod analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 45–72. doi: 10.1080/00273170903504729 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pohl, S., Steyer, R. & Kraus, K. (2008). Modelling method effects as individual causal effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171, 41–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2007.00517.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rijmen, F. & De Boeck, P. (2002). The random weights linear logistic test model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 271–285. doi: 10.1177/0146621602026003003 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rijmen, F., Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P. & Kuppens, P. (2003). A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory. Psychological Methods, 8, 185. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.185 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Ferring, D. & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79–98. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Geiser, C. & Fiege, C. (2012). Latent state-trait models. In H. CooperEd., Handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 3. Data analysis and research publication (pp. 291–308). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C. & Cole, D. A. (2015). A Theory of States and Traits-Revised. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 71–98. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R. & Nagel, W. (2017). Probability and conditional expectation: Fundamentals for the empirical sciences. Chichester, UK: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Schmitt, M. & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389–408. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<389::AID-PER361>3.0.CO;2-A First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Eid, M. & Notz, P. (1991). Befindlichkeitsmessung und Latent-State-Trait-Modelle [Measurement of mood and latent-statetrait models]. Arbeitsbericht zum DFG-Projekt “Ste 411/3-1”. Trier, Germany: Department of Psychology of the University. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wang, W.-C. & Wilson, M. (2005). The Rasch Testlet Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 126–149. doi: 10.1177/0146621604271053 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Xie, Y. & Wilson, M. (2008). Investigating DIF and extensions using an LLTM approach and also an individual differences approach: An international testing context. Psychology Science, 50, 403–416. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar