Testing person fit in cognitive diagnosis

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 579-598

  Liu, Ying ^a   Douglas, Jeffrey A ^a   Henson, Robert A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive diagnosis; DINA model; Generalized likelihood ratio test; Person fit; Psychological tests

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350527067     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621609331960     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 434-435). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
2. de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333-353.
3. DiBello, L.V., Stout, W.F., & Roussos, L.A. (2007). Cognitive diagnosis Part I. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (Vol. 26): Psychometrics (pp. 979-1029). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
4. Drasgow, F., & Guertler, E. (1987). A decision-theoretic approach to the use of appropriateness measurement for detecting invalid test and scale scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 10-18. http://psycnet.a-pa.org/journals/apl/72/1/OK?].
5. ECPE information bulletin. (2007). Retrieved July 09, 2007, from http://141.211.177.75/UofM/Content/eli/document/ECPE_IB.pdf.
6. Emons, W.H.M. (2009). Detection and diagnosis of person misfit from patterns of summed polytomous item scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 599-619.
7. Haertel, E.H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301-321.
8. Hartley, H. (1958). Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data. Biometrics, 14, 174-194.
9. Henson, R.A., & Templin, J.L. (2007, April). Large-scale language assessment using cognitive diagnosis models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
10. Henson, R.A., Templin, J.L., & Willse, J.T. (2008). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9089-5.
11. Hulin, C.L., Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C.K. (1983). Item response theory. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwins.
12. Junker, B.W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258-272.
13. Levine, M.V., & Drasgow, F. (1983). Appropriateness measurement: Validating studies and variable ability models. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 109-131). New York: Academic Press.
14. Levine, M.V., & Drasgow, F. (1988). Optimal appropriateness measurement. Psychometrika, 53, 161-176.
15. Levine, M.V., & Rubin, D.F. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple-choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 269-290.
16. Liao, Y. (2007). Investigating the Construct Validity of the Grammar and Vocabulary Section and the Listening Section of the ECCE: Lexico-Grammatical Ability as a Predictor of L2 Listening Ability. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 5, 37-78.
17. Lord, F.M. (1977). Practical applications of item characteristic curve theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 117-138.
18. Meijer, R.R. (1994). The influence of the presence of deviant item score patterns on the power of a person-fit statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 311-314.
19. Meijer, R.R., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Methodology review: Evaluating person fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 107-135.
20. Mislevy, R.J. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 379-416.
21. Molenaar, I.W., & Hoijtink, H. (1990). The many null distributions of person fit indices. Psychometrika, 55, 75-106.
22. Purpura, J.E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Self, S.G., & Liang, K.-Y. (1987). Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 605-610.
24. Tatsuoka, K.K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item responses theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
25. Tatsuoka, K.K. (1990). Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. G. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453-488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Tatsuoka, K.K., & Linn, R.L. (1983). Indices for detecting unusual patterns: Links between two general approaches and potential applications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 81-96.
27. Trabin, T.E., & Weiss, D.J. (1983). The person response curve: Fit of individuals to item response theory models. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 83-108). New York: Academic Press.
28. Wright, B.D. (1977). Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 97-115.
29. Wright, B.D., & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mess Press.