4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Model Similarity, Model Selection, and Attribute Classification

      , ,
      Applied Psychological Measurement
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d10389527e110">Selecting the most appropriate cognitive diagnosis model (CDM) for an item is a challenging process. Although general CDMs provide better model-data fit, specific CDMs have more straightforward interpretations, are more stable, and can provide more accurate classifications when used correctly. Recently, the Wald test has been proposed to determine at the item level whether a general CDM can be replaced by specific CDMs without a significant loss in model-data fit. The current study examines the practical consequence of the test by evaluating whether the attribute-vector classification based on CDMs selected by the Wald test is better than that based on general CDMs. Although the Wald test can detect the true underlying model for certain CDMs, it is yet unclear how effective it is at distinguishing among the wider range of CDMs found in the literature. This study investigates the relative similarity of the various CDMs through the use of the newly developed dissimiliarity index, and explores the implications for the Wald test. Simulations show that the Wald test cannot distinguish among additive models due to their inherent similarity, but this does not impede the ability of the test to provide higher correct classification rates than general CDMs, particularly when the sample size is small and items are of low quality. An empirical example is included to demonstrate the viability of the procedure. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Estimating multiple classification latent class models

          E. Maris (1999)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A General Method of Empirical Q-matrix Validation.

              In contrast to unidimensional item response models that postulate a single underlying proficiency, cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) posit multiple, discrete skills or attributes, thus allowing CDMs to provide a finer-grained assessment of examinees' test performance. A common component of CDMs for specifying the attributes required for each item is the Q-matrix. Although construction of Q-matrix is typically performed by domain experts, it nonetheless, to a large extent, remains a subjective process, and misspecifications in the Q-matrix, if left unchecked, can have important practical implications. To address this concern, this paper proposes a discrimination index that can be used with a wide class of CDM subsumed by the generalized deterministic input, noisy "and" gate model to empirically validate the Q-matrix specifications by identifying and replacing misspecified entries in the Q-matrix. The rationale for using the index as the basis for a proposed validation method is provided in the form of mathematical proofs to several relevant lemmas and a theorem. The feasibility of the proposed method was examined using simulated data generated under various conditions. The proposed method is illustrated using fraction subtraction data.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Applied Psychological Measurement
                Applied Psychological Measurement
                SAGE Publications
                0146-6216
                1552-3497
                November 26 2015
                January 18 2016
                : 40
                : 3
                : 200-217
                Article
                10.1177/0146621615621717
                5978484
                29881048
                e3ecb92c-a30e-4cd4-be89-ca71b675a8ea
                © 2016

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article