The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: On the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences.
Abstract
This article analyzes latent variable models from a cognitive psychology perspective. We start by discussing work by Tuerlinckx and De Boeck (2005), who proved that a diffusion model for 2-choice response processes entails a 2-parameter logistic item response theory (IRT) model for individual differences in the response data. Following this line of reasoning, we discuss the appropriateness of IRT for measuring abilities and bipolar traits, such as pro versus contra attitudes. Surprisingly, if a diffusion model underlies the response processes, IRT models are appropriate for bipolar traits but not for ability tests. A reconsideration of the concept of ability that is appropriate for such situations leads to a new item response model for accuracy and speed based on the idea that ability has a natural zero point. The model implies fundamentally new ways to think about guessing, response speed, and person fit in IRT. We discuss the relation between this model and existing models as well as implications for psychology and psychometrics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471721182 · Cited by 10,991
The Theory of Stochastic Processes
Cox, D. R., Miller, H. D., Weiss, G., & Shuler, K. (1966) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3047872 · Cited by 3,324
The theoretical status of latent variables.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.203 · Cited by 1,566
Self-citationModeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00067 · Cited by 1,478
Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics
Wickelgren, W. A. (1977) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(77)90012-9 · Cited by 1,304
A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism.
Van Der Maas, H. L. J., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.4.842 · Cited by 1,006
Cited by
Cramer, A. O. J., Van Der Sluis, S., Noordhof, A., Wichers, M., Geschwind, N., Aggen, S. H., Kendler, K. S., & Borsboom, D. (2012) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1866 · Cited by 477
Self-citationMarsman, M., Borsboom, D., Kruis, J., Epskamp, S., van Bork, R., Waldorp, L. J., Maas, H. L. J. V. D., & Maris, G. (2018) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2017.1379379 · Cited by 287
Self-citationA signal detection–item response theory model for evaluating neuropsychological measures
Thomas, M. L., Brown, G. G., Gur, R. C., Moore, T. M., Patt, V. M., Risbrough, V. B., & Baker, D. G. (2018) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2018.1427699 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Maas, H. L. J., Molenaar, D., Maris, G., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 339-356
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2014472327
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 11.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: On the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0022749
- The paper
- van der Maas, H. L. J., Molenaar, D., Maris, G., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2011). Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: On the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022749
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
