A Note on Comparing Examinee Classification Methods for Cognitive Diagnosis Models

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2011-04-01 DOI:10.1177/0013164410388832
Alan Huebner, Chun Wang
{"title":"A Note on Comparing Examinee Classification Methods for Cognitive Diagnosis Models","authors":"Alan Huebner, Chun Wang","doi":"10.1177/0013164410388832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cognitive diagnosis models have received much attention in the recent psychometric literature because of their potential to provide examinees with information regarding multiple fine-grained discretely defined skills, or attributes. This article discusses the issue of methods of examinee classification for cognitive diagnosis models, which are special cases of restricted latent class models. Specifically, the maximum likelihood estimation and maximum a posteriori classification methods are compared with the expected a posteriori method. A simulation study using the Deterministic Input, Noisy-And model is used to assess the classification accuracy of the methods using various criteria.","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":"71 1","pages":"407 - 419"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0013164410388832","citationCount":"57","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410388832","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57

Abstract

Cognitive diagnosis models have received much attention in the recent psychometric literature because of their potential to provide examinees with information regarding multiple fine-grained discretely defined skills, or attributes. This article discusses the issue of methods of examinee classification for cognitive diagnosis models, which are special cases of restricted latent class models. Specifically, the maximum likelihood estimation and maximum a posteriori classification methods are compared with the expected a posteriori method. A simulation study using the Deterministic Input, Noisy-And model is used to assess the classification accuracy of the methods using various criteria.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于认知诊断模型中考生分类方法比较的说明
认知诊断模型在最近的心理测量学文献中受到了很大的关注,因为它们有可能为考生提供有关多个细粒度离散定义的技能或属性的信息。本文讨论了认知诊断模型的考生分类方法问题,该模型是限制潜类模型的特例。具体来说,将极大似然估计和极大后验分类方法与期望后验方法进行了比较。采用确定性输入、噪声和模型进行仿真研究,利用各种标准评估方法的分类精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
期刊最新文献
Faking in High-Stakes Personality Assessments: A Response-Time-Based Latent Response Mixture Modeling Approach. Conditional Dependencies Between Response Time and Item Discrimination: An Item-Level Meta-Analysis. Estimating Trends With Differential Item Functioning: A Comparison of Five IRT-Based Approaches. Discriminating Between Attribute, Item-Position, and Wording Effects by the Congeneric and Tau-Equivalent Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. Estimation of Conditional Standard Errors of Measurement for MLE Scores in MST.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1