Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the dominance and ideal-point response process models for a trust in science measure developed from Thurstone’s (Am J Sociol 33(4):529–554, 1928; Psychol Rev 36(3):222–241, 1929) scaling procedures. The trust in science scale was scored in four different ways: (1) a dominance response approach using observed scores, (2) a dominance response approach using model-based trait estimates, (3) an ideal-point response observed score approach using Thurstone scoring, and (4) an ideal-point response approach using model-based trait estimates. Comparisons were made between the four approaches in terms of psychometric properties and correlations with political beliefs, education level, and beliefs about scientific consensus in a convenience sample of 401 adults. Results suggest that both the ideal-point and two-parameter IRT models fit equally well in terms of overall model fit. However, two items demonstrated poor item fit in the two-parameter model. Correlations with political beliefs, education level, and science-related items revealed very little differences in magnitude across the four scoring procedures. This study shows support for the flexibility of the ideal-point IRT model for capturing non-ideal-point response patterns. The study also demonstrates the use of using IRT to examine item parameters and item fit.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 52–69.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 88–106.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Prewett, M. S., Gray, A. A., Stilson, F. R., & Tuttle, M. D. (2009). Normative scoring of multidimensional pairwise preference personality scales using IRT: Empirical comparisons with other formats. Human Performance, 22(2), 105–127.
Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley.
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2009). Test theory and personality measurement. Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment, 59–80.
Drasgow, F., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Stark, S. (2010). 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 465–476.
Funk, C., & Rainie, L. (2015). Americans, politics, and science issues. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5–53.
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Hernández, A., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). A multidimensional ideal point item response theory model for binary data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(4), 445–472.
McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the american public. Population and Environment, 32(1), 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1.
Meade, A. W. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 531–551.
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289–298.
Roberts, J. S., Donoghue, J. R., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 3–32.
Roberts, J. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (1996). A unidimensional item response model for unfolding responses from a graded disagree-agree response scale. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3), 231–255.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 25–39.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554.
Thurstone, L. L. (1929). Theory of attitude measurement. Psychological Review, 36(3), 222–241.
Thurstone, T. G. (1932). The difficulty of a test and its diagnostic value. Journal of Educational Psychology, 23(5), 335.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wilgus, S., Travis, J. (2019). A Comparison of Ideal-Point and Dominance Response Processes with a Trust in Science Thurstone Scale. In: Wiberg, M., Culpepper, S., Janssen, R., González, J., Molenaar, D. (eds) Quantitative Psychology. IMPS IMPS 2017 2018. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 265. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01309-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01310-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)