When cognitive diagnosis meets computerized adaptive testing: CD-CAT

Psychometrika

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 619-632

  Cheng, Ying ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive diagnosis; Computerized adaptive testing; Item response theory; Latent class model; Optimal sequential selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949264956     PISSN: 00333123     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11336-009-9123-2     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chang, H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.
2. Chang, H., & Zhang, J. (2002). Hypergeometric family and item overlap rates in computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 67, 387-398.
3. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. New York: Wiley.
4. Embretson, S. E. (2001). The second century of ability testing: Some predictions and speculations. Retrievable at http://www. ets. org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG7. pdf.
5. Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301-321.
6. Haertel, E. H. (1984). An application of latent class models to assessment data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 333-346.
7. Haertel, E. H., & Wiley, D. E. (1993). Presentations of ability structures: Implications for testing. In N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevey, & I. I. Bejar (Eds.). Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 359-384). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
8. Hambleton, R. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
9. Hartz, S. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the Unified Model for assessing cognitive abilities: blending theory with practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
10. Hartz, S., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (2002). Skill diagnosis: Theory and practice [Computer software user manual for Arpeggio software]. Princeton: ETS.
11. Henson, R., & Douglas, J. (2005). Test construction for cognitive diagnosis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 262-277.
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. Karelitz, T. M., & de la Torre, J. (2008). When do measurement models produce diagnostic information? An investigation of the assumptions of cognitive diagnosis modeling. In National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Meeting in New York, NY.
14. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
15. McGlohen, M. K. (2004). The application of cognitive diagnosis and computerized adaptive testing to a large-scale assessment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
16. McGlohen, M. K., & Chang, H. (2008). Combining computer adaptive testing technology with cognitively diagnostic assessment. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 808-821.
17. Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., Yan, D., & Steinberg, L. S. (1999). Bayes nets in educational assessment: Where do the numbers come from? In K. B. Laskey & H. Prade (Eds.). Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 437-446). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Rupp, A., & Templin, J. (2008). The effects of Q-matrix misspecification on parameter estimates and classification accuracy in the DINA model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 78-96.
19. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423.
20. Stocking, M. L. (1994). Three practical issues for modern adaptive testing item pools (ETS Research Rep. No. 94-5). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
21. Tatsuoka, C. (2002). Data analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 51, 337-350.
22. Tatsuoka, C., & Ferguson, T. (2003). Sequential classification on partially ordered sets. Journal of Royal Statistics, Series B, 65, 143-157.
23. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
24. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1995). Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis: a statistical pattern classification approach. In P. Nichols, S. Chipman, & R. Brennan (Eds.). Cognitively diagnostic assessments (pp. 327-359). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
25. Templin, J. (2006). CDM: cognitive diagnosis modeling using Mplus, user guide. Retrievable at: http://www. iqgrads. net/jtemplin/downloads/CDM_user_guide. pdf.
26. Templin, J., & Henson, R. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287-305.
27. Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Eds.). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 101-133). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
28. van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item-selection criteria for adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 63, 201-216.
29. von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-05-16). Princeton: ETS.
30. Xu, X., Chang, H., & Douglas, J. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing strategies for cognitive diagnosis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
31. Xu, X., & Douglas, J. (2006). Computerized adaptive testing under nonparametric IRT models. Psychometrika, 71, 121-137.