On the speed sensitivity parameter in the lognormal model for response times and implications for high-stakes measurement practice.

Autor/inn/en	Becker, Benjamin; Debeer, Dries; Weirich, Sebastian; Goldhammer, Frank
Titel	On the speed sensitivity parameter in the lognormal model for response times and implications for high-stakes measurement practice.
Quelle	In: Applied psychological measurement, 45 (2021) 6, S. 407-422 PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Illustrationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1552-3497
DOI	10.1177/01466216211008530
Schlagwörter	Testkonstruktion; Vergleich; Item-Response-Theory; Testtheorie; Leistungsbeurteilung; Frage; Messverfahren; Technologiebasiertes Testen; Dauer; Antwort; Einflussfaktor; Modell; Simulation
Abstract	In high-stakes testing, often multiple test forms are used and a common time limit is enforced. Test fairness requires that ability estimates must not depend on the administration of a specific test form. Such a requirement may be violated if speededness differs between test forms. The impact of not taking speed sensitivity into account on the comparability of test forms regarding speededness and ability estimation was investigated. The lognormal measurement model for response times by van der Linden was compared with its extension by Klein Entink, van der Linden, and Fox, which includes a speed sensitivity parameter. An empirical data example was used to show that the extended model can fit the data better than the model without speed sensitivity parameters. A simulation was conducted, which showed that test forms with different average speed sensitivity yielded substantial different ability estimates for slow test takers, especially for test takers with high ability. Therefore, the use of the extended lognormal model for response times is recommended for the calibration of item pools in high-stakes testing situations. Limitations to the proposed approach and further research questions are discussed. (DIPF/Orig.).
Erfasst von	DIPF \| Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurt am Main
Update	2022/2