Estimation of Response Styles Using the Multidimensional Nominal Response Model: A Tutorial and Comparison With Sum Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in item response models for measuring response styles on Likert-type items. These model-based approaches stand in contrast to traditional sum-score-based methods where researchers count the number of times that participants selected certain response options. The multidimensional nominal response model (MNRM) offers a flexible model-based approach that may be intuitive to those familiar with sum score approaches. This paper presents a tutorial on the model along with code for estimating it using three different software packages: flexMIRT®, mirt, and Mplus. We focus on specification and interpretation of response functions. In addition, we provide analytical details on how sum score to scale score conversion can be done with the MNRM. In the context of a real data example, three different scoring approaches are then compared. This example illustrates how sum-score-based approaches can sometimes yield scores that are confounded with substantive content. We expect that the current paper will facilitate further investigations as to whether different substantive conclusions are reached under alternative approaches to measuring response styles.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.013 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".