On the Choice of Parameters for the Lognormal Model for Response Times: Commentary on Becker et al. (2013).
Saved in:
| Title: | On the Choice of Parameters for the Lognormal Model for Response Times: Commentary on Becker et al. (2013). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | van der Linden, Wim J.1 (AUTHOR) wjvdlinden@outlook.com |
| Source: | Journal of Educational Measurement. Dec2024, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p624-633. 10p. |
| Subject Terms: | Published articles, Periodical articles, Speed |
| Abstract: | In a recently published article in this journal, Becker et al. claim that, because of a missing slope parameter, the lognormal model for response times on test items almost never holds in practice. However, the authors' critique rests on a misrepresentation of the model, which already does have the equivalent of a slope parameter. More importantly, their extra parameter spoils the interpretation of the parameters for the test‐takers' speed and labor intensity of the items necessary for a response‐time model to be empirically meaningful while their proposed interpretation of the extra parameter seems unwarranted. An analysis of the authors' earlier empirical comparison between the original and their alternative version of the model does not seem to support much of a conclusion about the relative fit of the two models. Also, their simulation study conducted to demonstrate the necessity of the extra slope parameter appears to be based on data simulated in favor of their parameter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Educational Measurement is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In a recently published article in this journal, Becker et al. claim that, because of a missing slope parameter, the lognormal model for response times on test items almost never holds in practice. However, the authors' critique rests on a misrepresentation of the model, which already does have the equivalent of a slope parameter. More importantly, their extra parameter spoils the interpretation of the parameters for the test‐takers' speed and labor intensity of the items necessary for a response‐time model to be empirically meaningful while their proposed interpretation of the extra parameter seems unwarranted. An analysis of the authors' earlier empirical comparison between the original and their alternative version of the model does not seem to support much of a conclusion about the relative fit of the two models. Also, their simulation study conducted to demonstrate the necessity of the extra slope parameter appears to be based on data simulated in favor of their parameter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00220655 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/jedm.12411 |
