A Joint Modeling Approach for Reaction Time and Accuracy in Psycholinguistic Experiments


In the psycholinguistic literature, reaction times and accuracy can be analyzed separately using mixed (logistic) effects models with crossed random effects for item and subject. Given the potential correlation between these two outcomes, a joint model for the reaction time and accuracy may provide further insight. In this paper, a Bayesian hierarchical framework is proposed that allows estimation of the correlation between time intensity and difficulty at the item level, and between speed and ability at the subject level. The framework is shown to be flexible in that reaction times can follow a (log-) normal or (shifted) Weibull distribution. A simulation study reveals the reduction in bias gains possible when using joint models, and an analysis of an example from a Dutch–English word recognition study illustrates the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.


  1. Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.

  2. Baten, K., Hofman, F., & Loeys, T. (2011, in press). Cross-lingual activation in bilingual sentence processing: the role of word class meaning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

  3. Bates, D.M., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (version 0.9975-12) [R software package]. Retrieved from

  4. Bloxom, B. (1985). Considerations in psychometric modeling of response time. Psychometrika, 50, 383–397.

  5. Carlin, B.P., & Louis, T.A. (2000). Bayes and empirical Bayes methods of data analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.

  6. Clark, H.H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.

  7. Entink, R.H.K., Hornke, L.F., Kuhn, J.-T., & Fox, J.-P. (2009). Evaluating cognitive theory: a joint modeling approach using responses and response times. Psychological Methods, 14, 54–75.

  8. Farrell, S., & Ludwig, C.J.H. (2008). Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation of hierarchical response time models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1209–1217.

  9. Jaeger, F.T. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.

  10. Lunn, D.J., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2000). WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure and extensibility. Statistics and Computing, 10, 325–337.

  11. Ntzoufras, I. (2009). Bayesian modeling using WinBUGS. Hoboken: Wiley.

  12. Raaijmakers, J.G.W., Schrijnemakers, J.M.C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426.

  13. Raudenbush, S.W. (1993). A crossed random effects model for unbalanced data with applications in cross-sectional and longitudinal research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 321–349.

  14. R Development Core Team (2009). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from

  15. Rouder, J., Sun, D., Speckmanm, P.L., Lu, J., & Zhou, D. (2003). A hierarchical Bayesian statistical framework for response time distributions. Psychometrika, 68, 589–606.

  16. Rouder, J., & Lu, J. (2005). An introduction to Bayesian hierarchical models with an application in theory of signal detection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 573–604.

  17. Rouder, J., Lu, J., Sun, D., Speckman, P., Morey, R., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2007). Signal detection with random participant and item effects. Psychometrika, 72(4), 621–642.

  18. Rouder, J., Lu, J., Morey, R., Sun, D., & Speckman, P. (2008a). A hierarchical process-dissociation model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 370–389.

  19. Rouder, J., Tuerlinckx, F., Speckman, P., Lu, J., & Gomez, P. (2008b). A hierarchical approach for fitting curves to response time measurements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1201–1208.

  20. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 64, 586–639.

  21. Sturtz, S., Ligges, U., & Gelman, A. (2005). R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. Journal of Statistical Software, 12(3), 1–16.

  22. Van Breukelen, G. (2005). Psychometric modeling of response speed and accuracy with mixed and conditional regression. Psychometrika, 70(2), 359–376.

  23. Vandekerckhove, J., Verheyen, S., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2010). A crossed random effects diffusion model for speeded semantic categorization decisions. Acta Psychologica, 133, 269–282.

  24. Van der Linden, W. (2006). A lognormal model for response times on test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(2), 181–204.

  25. Van der Linden, W. (2007). A hierarchical framework for speed and accuracy on test items. Psychometrika, 72(3), 287–308.

  26. Van der Linden, W. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(3), 247–272.

  27. Van der Linden, W. (2010). Linking response-time parameters onto a common scale. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(1), 92–114.

  28. Wenger, M.J., & Gibson, B.S. (2004). Using hazard functions to assess changes in processing capacity in an attentional cuing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30(4), 708–719.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to T. Loeys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loeys, T., Rosseel, Y. & Baten, K. A Joint Modeling Approach for Reaction Time and Accuracy in Psycholinguistic Experiments. Psychometrika 76, 487–503 (2011) doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9211-y

Download citation


  • joint modeling
  • Bayesian estimation
  • reaction time
  • psycholinguistic experiment