Item response theory (IRT) model applications extend well beyond cognitive ability testing, and various patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures are among the more prominent examples. PRO (and like) constructs differ from cognitive ability constructs in many ways, and these differences have model fitting implications. With a few notable exceptions, however, most IRT applications to PRO constructs rely on traditional IRT models, such as the graded response model. We review some notable differences between cognitive and PRO constructs and how these differences can present challenges for traditional IRT model applications. We then apply two models (the traditional graded response model and an alternative log-logistic model) to depression measure data drawn from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System project. We do not claim that one model is “a better fit” or more “valid” than the other; rather, we show that the log-logistic model may be more consistent with the construct of depression as a unipolar phenomenon. Clearly, the graded response and log-logistic models can lead to different conclusions about the psychometrics of an instrument and the scaling of individual differences. We underscore, too, that, in general, explorations of which model may be more appropriate cannot be decided only by fit index comparisons; these decisions may require the integration of psychometrics with theory and research findings on the construct of interest.

As naturally occurring examples of folk culture and creativity, internet memes provide a rich testbed to examine the interrelationships among cognitive and motivational factors that influence their impact. In two studies with participants recruited over the internet, we measured a variety of appraisals of both apolitical and political memes with a focus on the role of metaphorical aptness and personal relatability as predictors of comprehensibility and humor. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze interconnections among appraisals. A major network path connects relatability to aptness, which in turn is linked to appraisals of comprehensibility, humor, and propensity to share. For political memes, the congruity of the meme with the person's political position (liberal or conservative) has a powerful but indirect impact on the propensity to share it. These findings indicate that appraisals of memes are based on cognitive and motivational processes that also underlie metaphor comprehension and appreciation of humor.

No abstract

As part of a scale development project, we fit a nominal response item response theory model to responses to the Health Care Engagement Measure (HEM). When using the original 5-point response format, categories were not ordered as intended for six of the 23 items. For the remaining, the category boundary discrimination between Categories 0 ( not at all true) and 1 ( a little bit true) was only weakly discriminating, suggesting uninformative categories. When the lowest two categories were collapsed, psychometric properties improved greatly. Category boundary discriminations within items, however, varied significantly. Specifically, higher response category distinctions, such as responding 3 ( very true) versus 2 ( mostly true) were considerably more discriminating than lower response category distinctions. Implications for HEM scoring and for improving measurement precision at lower levels of the construct are presented as is the unique role of the nominal response model in category analysis.

No abstract

Many Americans do not view climate change as a threat requiring urgent action. Moreover, among U.S. conservatives, higher science literacy is paradoxically associated with higher anthropogenic climate-change skepticism. The present study harnessed the power of two cognitive constraints essential to belief formation and revision to design educational materials that can mitigate these problems. The key role of the coherence and causal-invariance constraints, which map onto two narrative proclivities that anthropologists have identified as universal, predicts that climate-change information embedded in scientific explanations of (indisputable) everyday observations within a coherent personal moral narrative, juxtaposed with reasoners’ typically less coherent explanations, will be more persuasive than climate-change information by itself. An experiment conducted in U.S. states with the highest level of climate skepticism demonstrates that across the political spectrum, conveying science information using materials that leverage these constraints raises both appreciation of science and willingness to take pro-climate actions.

No abstract

No abstract