本研究以線性羅吉斯測驗模型(Linear Logistic Test Model, LLTM; Fisher, 1973)分析台灣臉孔記憶測驗(Taiwanese Face Memory Test, TFMT; 鄭雅馨等人，2016)與臉孔處理測驗(Face Processing Tasks; 鄭雅馨等人，2016)資料。本研究目的有二：(一)為解決實驗題項由題庫隨機抽取，受試者能力是否能直接以總分進行比較。(二)從模型比較觀點來探討臉孔處理應為何種歷程。研究一的結果，以LLTM分析TFMT之臉孔刺激，發現應將刺激臉孔分為難、中、易三種題型，再進一步隨機抽題，才不會造成受試者能力估計受到抽題偏誤，且由於LLTM的特性可直接估計受試者能力並將實驗操弄難度進行估計。研究二模型比較的結果為支持雙路徑為假設臉孔處理能力同時具有整體能力以及部件能力，且兩者之間會有權衡。總括來說，本研究試圖結合計量與知覺心理學，提供實驗資料另一種分析的視角，以LLTM分析臉孔實驗資料，既能檢驗題項是否公平，又能估計實驗操弄造成的難度變化，並將受試者能力與題項難度一併估計。

In this study, we use the Linear Logistic Test Model (LLTM) to analyze the Taiwanese Face Memory Test (TFMT) and Face Processing Tasks. The goal of the study is twofold: (1) to confirm whether the ability of the subjects can be directly compared with the total score at the randomly selected items, and (2) to explore the face processing from the model comparison. The first study is using LLTM to analyze the face stimulations of TFMT. It is found that the face stimulations of TFMT should be divided into three types: difficult, medium and easy. In the second study, we use model comparison to find the dual route model might be the most likely. It supports the face processing including two abilities: holistic and component. In short, this study attempts to link psychometrics and perceptual psychology, provide another perspective of experimental data, and using LLTM to alalyze the face experiment, which can not only test item fairness, but also estimate the difficulty change caused by experimental manipulation.

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 19(6), 716-723.
Bartlett, J. C., Searcy, J. H., & Abdi, H. (2003). What are the routes to face recognition. Perception of faces, objects and scenes: Analytic and holistic processes, 21-52.
Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1977). From piecemeal to configurational representation of faces. Science, 195(4275), 312-314.
Cho, S.-J., Wilmer, J., Herzmann, G., McGugin, R. W., Fiset, D., Van Gulick, A. E., . . . Gauthier, I. (2015). Item response theory analyses of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). Psychological assessment, 27(2), 552.
Diamond, R., & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107.
Dorans, N.J., & Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer(Eds.), Differential item functioning(pp. 35-66). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duchaine, B., & Nakayama, K. (2006). The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants. Neuropsychologia, 44(4), 576-585.
Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta psychologica, 37(6), 359-374.
Freire, A., Lee, K., & Symons, L. A. (2000). The face-inversion effect as a deficit in the encoding of configural information: Direct evidence. Perception, 29(2), 159-170.
Goldstein, A. G. (1983). Behavioral scientists' fascination with faces. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7(4), 223-255.
Han, K. T. (2012). Fixing the c parameter in the three-parameter logistic model. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(1), 1-24.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning: Routledge.
Kopf, J., Zeileis, A., & Strobl, C. (2015). A Framework for Anchor Methods and an Iterative Forward Approach for DIF Detection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(2), 83-103. doi:10.1177/0146621614544195
Kubinger, K. D. (2009). Applications of the linear logistic test model in psychometric research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(2), 232-244.
Kuha, J. (2004). AIC and BIC: Comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociological methods & research, 33(2), 188-229.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The annals of statistics, 6(2), 461-464.
Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 221-242.
Sheu, C.-F., Chen, C.-T., Su, Y.-H., & Wang, W.-C. (2005). Using SAS PROC NLMIXED to fit item response theory models. Behavior Research Methods, 37(2), 202-218.
Sugiura, N. (1978). Further analysts of the data by akaike's information criterion and the finite corrections: Further analysts of the data by akaike's. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 7(1), 13-26.
Van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice: Springer.
Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of experimental psychology, 81(1), 141.
Yin, R. K. (1970). Face recognition by brain-injured patients: a dissociable ability? Neuropsychologia, 8(4), 395-402.
王瑋瀚, 單延愷, 劉娟里, 洪百姿, & 蘇東平. (2004). 臉孔記憶測驗之跨種族效應探究－以WMS-Ⅲ為例. [Study of Cross-race Effect on Face Memory Test-An Example of WMS-Ⅲ]. 臨床心理學刊, 1(2), 107-112.
余民寧. (2009). 試題反應理論 (IRT) 及其應用: 心理.
楊志誠, & 襲充文. (2010). 臉孔辨識及其發展差異: 多層次文獻回顧. 應用心理研究(46), 153-230.
鄭雅馨, 襲充文, & 程冠豪. (2016). Age Differences in Face Memory and Face Processing between Younger and Older Adults in Taiwan. [台灣年輕人與年長者臉孔記憶與臉孔處理之年齡差異]. 中華心理學刊, 58(4), 233-262. doi:10.6129/cjp.20161008