Impact of diagnosticity on the adequacy of models for cognitive diagnosis under a linear attribute structure: A simulation study

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 450-469

  De La Torre, Jimmy ^a   Karelitz, Tzur M ^b  

^a The State University of New Jersey   (United States)

^b EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71549122894     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: 17453984     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2009.00092.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds. 2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York : Addison Wesley Longman.
2. Birenbaum, M., Tatsuoka, C., & Xin, T. (2005). Large-scale diagnostic assessment: Comparison of eighth graders' mathematics performance in the United States, Singapore and Israel. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 12, 167 181.
3. Commons, M. L., & Richards, F. A. (1984). A general model of stage theory. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon Eds. Beyond formal operations (pp. 120 140). New York : Praeger Publishers.
4. de la Torre, J. (2006, June). Skills profile comparisons at the state level: An application and extension of cognitive diagnosis modeling in NAEP. Presentation at the International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Montreal, Canada.
5. de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115 130.
6. de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2008). Model evaluation and selection in cognitive diagnosis: An analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika, 73, 595 624.
7. DiBello, L. V., & Stout, W. (2007). Guest editors' introduction and overview: IRT-based cognitive diagnostic models and related methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 285 291.
8. Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1999). Knowledge spaces. New York : Springer-Verlag.
9. Doornik, J. A. (2003). Object-oriented matrix programming using Ox (Version 3.1) Computer software London : Timberlake Consultants Press.
10. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York : Norton.
11. Gorin, J. S., & Embretson, S. E. (2006). Item difficulty modeling of paragraph comprehension items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 394 411.
12. Haertel, E. H. (1990) Continuous and discrete latent structure models for item response data. Psychometrika, 55, 477 494.
13. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York : Basic Books.
14. Junker, B. W. (1999). Some statistical models and computational methods that may be useful for cognitively-relevant assessment. Paper prepared for the Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, National Research Council, November 30, 1999.
15. 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.
16. Kuhn, D. (2001). Why development does (and does not) occur: Evidence from the domain of inductive reasoning. In J. L. McClelland & R. Siegler Eds. Mechanisms of cognitive development: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 221 249). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
17. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007-494). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 30, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ itemmaps/?subj=Mathematics&year=2007&grade=4
18. Leighton, J. P., Gierl, M. J., & Hunka, S. (2004). The attribute hierarchy model: An approach for integrating cognitive theory with assessment practice. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 205 236.
19. Macready, G. B., & Dayton, C. M. (1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 99 120.
20. Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187 212.
21. Pellegrino, J. W., Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1999). Addressing the "two disciplines" problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practices. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds. Review of research in education (pp. 307 353). Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.
22. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen : Danish Institute for Educational Research.
23. Roussos, L., Templin, J., & Henson, R. (2007). Skills Diagnosis using IRT-based latent class models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 293 311.
24. Stout, W. (2007). Skills diagnosis using IRT-based continuous latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 313 324.
25. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345 354.
26. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1995). Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds. Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 327 359). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
27. Tatsuoka, K. K., Corter, J., & Tatsuoka, C. (2004). Patterns of diagnosed mathematical content and process skills in TIMSS-R across a sample of 20 countries. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 901 906.
28. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
29. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items Computer software Chicago : Scientific Software International.