Process data, different from item responses, essentially shows the interactions between test-takers, item presentation including stems and options, technology-enhanced help features, as well as the computer interface. With the availability of process data in addition to product data, additional auxiliary information from the response process can be utilized to serve different assessment purposes such as enhancing accuracy in ability estimation, facilitating cognitive diagnosis, and aberrant responding behavior detection. Response time (RT) is the most frequently studied process data contained in log files in current psychometric modeling, although other process data is available such as the number of clicks, the frequency of use of help features, frequency of answer changes, and data collected using eye-tracking devices. Process data is worthy of exploration and the integration with product data can enhance our evidence base for assessment purposes. This chapter will focus on the use of RT as one important type of process data in cognitive diagnostic modeling.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Bolsinova, M., & Maris, G. (2016). A test for conditional independence between response time and accuracy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12059
Bolsinova, M., & Tijmstra, J. (2016). Posterior predictive checks for conditional independence between response time and accuracy. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616631746
Bolsinova, M., & Tijmstra, J. (2017). Improving precision of ability estimation: Getting more from response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 71(1), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12104
Bolsinova, M., De Boeck, P., & Tijmstra, J. (2016). Modeling conditional dependence between response time and accuracy. Psychometrika, 1–23.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9537-6
Bolsinova, M., Tijmstra, J., & Molenaar, D. (2017). Response moderation models for conditional dependence between response time and response accuracy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12076
Culpepper, S. A. (2015). Bayesian estimation of the DINA model with Gibbs sampling. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 454–476. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615595403
de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically-based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00069.x
de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295640
de la Torre, J., & Song, H. (2009). Simultaneous estimation of overall and domain abilities: A higher-order IRT model approach. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 620–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621608326423
DeCarlo, L. T. (2011). On the analysis of fraction subtraction data: The DINA model, classification, latent class sizes, and the Q-matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621610377081
DeCarlo, L. T. (2012). Recognizing uncertainty in the Q-matrix via a Bayesian extension of the DINA model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612449069
Embretson, S. E. (2015). The multicomponent latent trait model for diagnosis: Applications to heterogeneous test domains. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621614552014
Embretson, S. E., & Yang, X. (2013). A multicomponent latent trait model for diagnosis. Psychometrika, 78, 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-012-9296-y
Finkelman, M., Kim, W., Weissman, A., & Cook, R. (2014). Cognitive diagnostic models and computerized adaptive testing: Two new item-selection methods that incorporate response times. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 2(3), 59–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.7333/1412-0204059
Fox, J. P., & Marianti, S. (2016). Joint modeling of ability and differential speed using responses and response times. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(4), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1171128
Fox, J. P., & Marianti, S. (2017). Person-fit statistics for joint models for accuracy and speed. Journal of Educational Measurement, 54(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12143
Gaviria, J. L. (2005). Increase in precision when estimating parameters in computer assisted testing using response time. Quality & Quantity, 39(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-0437-y
Glas, C. A., & van der Linden, W. J. (2010). Marginal likelihood inference for a model for item responses and response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711009X481360
Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., Stelter, A., Tóth, K., Rölke, H., & Klieme, E. (2014). The time on task effect in reading and problem solving is moderated by task difficulty and skill: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 608–626.
Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Greiff, S. (2015). More is not always better: The relation between item response and item response time in Raven’s matrices. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3010021
Haberman, J. S., & Sinharay, S. (2010). Reporting of subscores using multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika, 75, 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-010-9158-4
Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1989.tb00336.x
He, Q., & von Davier, M. (2015). Identifying feature sequences from process data in problem-solving items with N-grams. In Quantitative psychology research (pp. 173–190). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
He, Q., & von Davier, M. (2016). Analyzing process data from problem-solving items with n-grams: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment. In Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 750–777). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Henson, R., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using loglinear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9089-5
Holden, R. R., & Kroner, D. G. (1992). Relative efficacy of differential response latencies for detecting faking on a self-report measure of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 170–173.
Jiao, H., Zhan, P., Liao, M., & Man, K. (2017, November). A joint multigroup testlet model for responses and response time accounting for differential item and speed functioning. Presented at the fifth conference on the statistical methods in psychometrics. New York: Columbia University.
Jiao, H., Liao, M., & Zhan, P. (2018, April). Cognitive diagnostic modeling using responses and response times for items embedded in multiple contexts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New York City, NY.
Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466210122032064
Klein Entink, R. H., Fox, J. P., & van der Linden, W. J. (2009). A multivariate multilevel approach to the modeling of accuracy and speed of test takers. Psychometrika, 74(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9075-y
Klein Entink, R. H., van der Linden, W. J., & Fox, J. P. (2009). A Box–Cox normal model for response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711008X374126
Lee, S. Y., & Wollack, J. (2017). Use of response time for detecting security threats and other anomalous behaviors. Paper presented at the Timing Impact on Measurement in Education conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Lee, Y.-S., de la Torre, J., & Park, Y. S. (2012). Cognitive diagnosticity of IRT-constructed assessment: An empirical investigation. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 333–345.
Liao, D. (2018). Conditional joint modeling of response time and response accuracy for speed-accuracy-difficulty interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Liu, C., & Cheng, Y. (2018). An application of the support vector machine for attribute-by- attribute classification in cognitive diagnosis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621617712246
Locke, E. A. (1965). Interaction of ability and motivation in performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21, 719–725. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.19188.8.131.529
Loeys, T., Rosseel, Y., & Baten, K. (2011). A joint modeling approach for reaction time and accuracy in psycholinguistic experiments. Psychometrika, 76(3), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9211-y
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011
Ma, W., & de la Torre, J. (2016). A sequential cognitive diagnosis model for polytomous responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69, 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12070
Macready, G. B., & Dayton, C. M. (1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986002002099
Man, K., Jiao, H., & Ouyang, Y. (2016, April). Response time based nonparametric person fit index for aberrant response behavior detection in large-scale assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Washington, DC.
Marianti, S., Fox, J. P., Avetisyan, M., Veldkamp, B. P., & Tijmstra, J. (2014). Testing for aberrant behavior in response time modeling. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(6), 426–451. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614559412
Maris, E. (1995). Psychometric latent response models. Psychometrika, 60, 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294327
Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294535
Maris, G., & van der Maas, H. (2012). Speed-accuracy response models: Scoring rules based on response time and accuracy. Psychometrika, 77(4), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-012-9288-y
Meng, X.-B., Tao, J., & Chang, H.-H. (2015). A conditional joint modeling approach for locally dependent item responses and response times. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12060
Minchen, N. (2017). Continuous response in cognitive diagnosis models: Response time modeling, computerized adaptive testing, and Q-Matrix validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Minchen, N. D., & de la Torre, J. (2016, April). Using response time in cognitive diagnosis models. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Washington, DC.
Molenaar, D., Tuerlinckx, F., & van der Maas, H. L. (2015). A bivariate generalized linear item response theory modeling framework to the analysis of responses and response times. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962684
Molenaar, D., Bolsinova, M., Rozsa, S., & De Boeck, P. (2016). Response mixture modeling of intraindividual differences in responses and response times to the Hungarian WISC-IV Block Design test. Journal of Intelligence, 4(3), 10–29. doi:10.3390/jintelligence4030010
Molenaar, D., Oberski, D., Vermunt, J., & De Boeck, P. (2016). Hidden Markov item response theory models for responses and response times. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(5), 606–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1192983
Molenaar, D., Bolsinova, M., & Vermunt, J. K. (2018). A semi-parametric within-subject mixture approach to the analyses of responses and response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 71(2), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12117
Qian, H., Staniewska, D., Reckase, M., & Woo, A. (2016). Using response time to detect item preknowledge in computer-based licensure examinations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 35, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12102
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Ranger, J., & Kuhn, J. T. (2012). Improving item response theory model calibration by considering response times in psychological tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(3), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612439796
Ranger, J., & Kuhn, J. T. (2013). Analyzing response times in tests with rank correlation approaches. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998611431086
Ranger, J., & Kuhn, J. T. (2014). An accumulator model for responses and response times in tests based on the proportional hazards model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12025
Ranger, J., & Ortner, T. (2012). A latent trait model for response times on tests employing the proportional hazards model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 65(2), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02032.x
Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(4). Retrieved [2019-01-29] from https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1623
Schnipke, D. L., & Scrams, D. J. (2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In C. N. Mills, M. Potenza, J. J. Fremer, & W. Ward (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 237–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Su, Y.-S., & Yajima, M. (2015). R2jags: Using R to run ‘JAGS’. R package version 0 (pp. 5–7). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R2jags
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1983.tb00212.x
van der Linden, W. J. (2006). A lognormal model for response times on test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031002181
van der Linden, W. J. (2007). A hierarchical framework for modeling speed and accuracy on test items. Psychometrika, 72(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1478-z
van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. (2010). Statistical tests of conditional independence between responses and/or response times on test items. Psychometrika, 75(1), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9129-9
van der Linden, W. J., & Guo, F. (2008). Bayesian procedures for identifying aberrant response-time patterns in adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 73(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-007-9046-8
van der Linden, W. J., & van Krimpen-Stoop, E. M. (2003). Using response times to detect aberrant responses in computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 68(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294800
van der Linden, W. J., Klein Entink, R. H., & Fox, J. P. (2010). IRT parameter estimation with response times as collateral information. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(5), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609349800
von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01993.x
van Rijn, P. W., & Ali, U. S. (2017). A comparison of item response models for accuracy and speed of item responses with applications to adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(2), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12101
von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (ETS research rep. No. RR-05-16). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
von Davier, M. (2014). The DINA model as a constrained general diagnostic model: Two variants of a model equivalency. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12003
von Davier, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2004). A class of models for cognitive diagnosis. Presented at the Fourth Spearman Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Wang, C., & Xu, G. (2015). A mixture hierarchical model for response times and response accuracy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68, 456–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12054
Wang, C., Chang, H.-H., & Douglas, J. A. (2013). The linear transformation model with frailties for the analysis of item response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02045.x
Wang, C., Fan, Z., Chang, H. H., & Douglas, J. A. (2013). A semiparametric model for jointly analyzing response times and accuracy in computerized testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(4), 381–417. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998612461831
Wang, T. (2006). A model for the joint distribution of item response and response time using a one-parameter Weibull distribution (Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment Research Report, no. 20). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
Wang, T., & Hanson, B. A. (2005). Development and calibration of an item response model that incorporates response time. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(5), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605275984
Xu, X., & von Davier, M. (2008a). Fitting the structured general diagnostic model to NAEP data (RR-08-27, ETS Research Report).
Xu, X., & von Davier, M. (2008b). Comparing multiple-group multinomial loglinear models for multidimensional skill distributions in the general diagnostic model (RR-08-35, ETS Research Report).
Yao, L., & Boughton, K. A. (2007). A multidimensional item response modeling approach for improving subscale proficiency estimation and classification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606291559
Zhan, P., Jiao, H., Liao, M., & Bian, Y. (2018). Bayesian DINA modeling incorporating within-item characteristics dependency. Applied Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618781594
Zhan, P., Jiao, H., & Liao, D. (2018). Cognitive diagnosis modelling incorporating item response times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 71, 262–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12114
Zhan, P., Liao, M., & Bian, Y. (2018). Joint testlet cognitive diagnosis modeling for paired local item dependence in response times and response accuracy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 609. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00607
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jiao, H., Liao, D., Zhan, P. (2019). Utilizing Process Data for Cognitive Diagnosis. In: von Davier, M., Lee, YS. (eds) Handbook of Diagnostic Classification Models. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05584-4_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05583-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05584-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)