___

• Azzolini, D., Bazoli, N., Lievore, I., Schizzerotto, A., & Vergolini, L. (2019). Beyond achievement. A comparative look into 15-year-olds’ school engagement, effort and perseverance in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
• Briggs, D. C. (2008). Using explanatory item response models to analyze group differences in science achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(2), 89-118. doi: 10.1080/08957340801926086
• De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of Item Response Theory. New York: The Guilford Press.
• De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (Eds.). (2004). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York, NY: Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3990-9
• De Boeck, P., Bakker, M., Zwitser, R., Nivard, M., Hofman, A., Tuer- linckx, F., & Partchev, I. (2011). The estimation of item response models with the lmer function from the lme4 package in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 39, 1-28.
• Dodonova Y. A., & Dodonov Y. S. (2013). Faster on easy items, more accurate on difficult ones: Cognitive ability and performance on a task of varying difficulty. Intelligence, 41, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2012.10.003
• Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., & Greiff, S. (2015). More is not always better: The relation between item response and item response time in Raven’s matrices. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 21-40.
• Goldhammer, F., Naumann, J., Stelter, A., Tóth, K., Rölke, H., & Klieme, E. (2014). The time on task effect in reading and problem solving is moderated by task difficulty and skill: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 608.
• Goldhammer, F., & Klein Entink, R. (2011). Speed of reasoning and its relation to reasoning ability. Intelligence, 39, 108-119.
• Greiff, S., Niepel, C., Scherer, R., & Martin, R. (2016). Understanding students' performance in a computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: An analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 36-46.
• Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Avvisati, F. (2015). Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into students' minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Computers & Education, 91, 92-105.
• Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapo, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamaki, J., Graesser, A. C., et al. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13,74-83.
• Klein Entink, R. H., Fox, J. P., & van der Linden, W. J. (2009). A multivariate multilevel approach to the modeling of accuracy and speed of test takers. Psychometrika, 74, 21-48. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9075-y
• Kong, X., Wise, S. L., & Bhola, D. S. (2007). Setting the response time threshold parameter to differentiate solution behavior from rapid-guessing behavior. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 606–619.
• Kyllonen, P., & Zu, J. (2016). Use of response time for measuring cognitive ability. Journal of Intelligence, 4(4), 14.
• Lasry, N., Watkins, J., Mazur, E., & Ibrahim, A. (2013). Response times to conceptual questions. American Journal of Physics, 81, 703. doi:10.1119/1.4812583.
• Lee, Y. H. & Haberman, S. J. (2016) Investigating test-taking behaviors using timing and process data. International Journal of Testing, 16(3), 240-267, doi: 10.1080/15305058.2015.1085385.
• Lee, Y. H., & Jia, Y. (2014). Using response time to investigate students' test-taking behaviors in a NAEP computer-based study. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 2(1), 8.
• Meyer, P. J. (2010). A mixture Rasch model with response time components. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 521–538.
• OECD (2017a). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. PISA,
• OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en.
• OECD (2017b). PISA 2015 results (Volume V): Collaborative problem solving. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• OECD (2017c). PISA 2015 technical report. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A. M., & Foorman, B. R. (2015). Improving the reliability of student scores from speeded assessments: An illustration of conditional item response theory using a computer-administered measure of vocabulary. Reading and Writing, 28,31–56. doi:10.1007/s11145-014-9518-z
• R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
• Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Educational Research
• Rijmen, F., Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P., & Kuppens, P. (2003). A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 185–205.
• Rios, J. A., Guo, H., Mao, L., & Liu, O. L. (2017). Evaluating the impact of careless responding on aggregated-scores: To filter unmotivated examinees or not? International Journal of Testing, 17,74–104. doi:10.1080/15305058.2016.1231193
• Robitzsch, A. (2019). Package “sirt”. (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sirt/sirt.pdf)
• Schnipke, D. L., & Scrams, D. J. (2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments, 237-266. in Computer-Based Testing: Building the Foundation for Future Assessments, edited by C. N. Mills et al. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1997).
• Su, S., & Davison, M. L. (2019) Improving the Predictive Validity of Reading Comprehension Using Response Times of Correct Item Responses. Applied Measurement in Education, 32 (2), 166-182, doi: 10.1080/08957347.2019.1577247
• van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response‐time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(3), 247-272.
• Verbić, S., & Tomić, B. (2009). Test item response time and the response likelihood. Retrieved on 20 March 2019 from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.4356.pdf .
• Wickham, H. (2012). reshape2: Flexibly reshape data: a reboot of the reshape package. R package version, 1(2).
• Wickham, H., Chang, W., & Wickham, M. H. (2016). Package ‘ggplot2’. Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics. Version, 2(1), 1-189.Wilson, M., De Boeck, P., & Carstensen, C. H. (2008). Explanatory Item Response Models: A brief introduction. In J Hartig, E Klieme, & D Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 91–120). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.
• Wise, S. L. (2006). An investigation of the differential effort received by items on a low-stakes, computer-based test. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 95-114.
• Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2005). Examinee motivation in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10, 1–18.
• Wise, S. L., Kingsbury, G. G., Thomason, J., & Kong, X. (2004). An investigation of motivation filtering in a statewide achievement testing program. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Na- tional Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
• Wang, C., & Xu, G. (2015). A mixture hierarchical model for response times and response accuracy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68(3), 456–477. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12054
• Wu, A. D., Chen, M. Y., & Stone, J. E. (2018). Investigating How Test-Takers Change Their Strategies to Handle Difficulty in Taking a Reading Comprehension Test: Implications for Score Validation. International Journal of Testing, 18(3), 253-275.
• Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125-145.