Item Response Tree Models to Investigate Acquiescence and Extreme Response Styles in Likert-Type Rating Scales
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Item response tree (IRTree) models are recently introduced as an approach to modeling response data from Likert-type rating scales. IRTree models are particularly useful to capture a variety of individuals' behaviors involving in item responding. This study employed IRTree models to investigate response styles, which are individuals' tendencies to prefer or avoid certain response categories in a rating scale. Specifically, we introduced two types of IRTree models, descriptive and explanatory models, perceived under a larger modeling framework, called explanatory item response models, proposed by De Boeck and Wilson. This extends the typical application of IRTree models for studying response styles. As a demonstration, we applied the descriptive and explanatory IRTree models to examine acquiescence and extreme response styles in Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale. Our findings suggested the presence of two distinct extreme response styles and acquiescence response style in the scale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it