The Generalized DINA Model Framework

Psychometrika

Volumn 76, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 179-199

  de la Torre, Jimmy ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cognitive diagnosis; DINA; MMLE; model comparison; parameter estimation; Wald test

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954628043     PISSN: 00333123     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Petrov, B. N., & Csaki, F. (Eds.) Proceedings of the second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267-281). Budapest: Akad. Kiado.
2. de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically-based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 343-362.
3. de la Torre, J. (2009a). A cognitive diagnosis model for cognitively-based multiple-choice options. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 163-183.
4. de la Torre, J. (2009b). DINA model and parameter estimation: a didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115-130.
5. de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). A higher-order latent trait model for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333-353.
6. de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2008). Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: an analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika, 73, 595-624.
7. Doornik, J. A. (2003). Object-oriented matrix programming using Ox (version 3. 1) [Computer software]. London: Timberlake Consultants Press.
8. Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374.
9. Fischer, G. H. (1997). Unidimensional linear logistic Rasch models. In van der Linden, W., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 225-244). New York: Springer.
10. Hagenaars, J. A. (1990). Categorical longitudinal data: loglinear panel, trend, and cohort analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
11. Hagenaars, J. A. (1993). Loglinear models with latent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12. Hartz, S. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the Unified Model for assessing cognitive abilities: blending theory with practicality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
13. Henson, R., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191-210.
14. Jaeger, J., Tatsuoka, C., & Berns, S. (2003). Innovative methods for extracting valid cognitive deficit profiles from NP test data in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 60, 140-140.
15. Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with non-parametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258-272.
16. Lehmann, E. L., & Casella, G. (1998). Theory of point estimation (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
17. Leighton, J. P., Gierl, M. J., & Hunka, S. (2004). The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: a variation on Tatsuoka's rule-space approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 205-236.
18. Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187-212.
19. Millon, T., Millon, C., Davis, R., & Grossman, S. (2006). MCMI-III manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis: Pearson Assessments.
20. Rossi, G., Elklit, A., & Simonsen, E. (2010). Empirical evidence for a four factor framework of personality disorder organization: multigroup confirmatory factor analyses of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III personality disorder scales across Belgian and Danish data samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 128-150.
21. Rossi, G., Sloore, H., & Derksen, J. (2008). The adaptation of the MCMI-III in two non-English-speaking countries: state of the art of the Dutch language version. In Millon, T., & Bloom, C. (Eds.), The Millon inventories: a practitioner's guide to personalized clinical assessment (2nd ed., pp. 369-386). New York: Guilford.
22. Rossi, G., van der Ark, L. A., & Sloore, H. (2007). Factor analysis of the Dutch language version of the MCMI-III. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 144-157.
23. Roussos, L. A., DiBello, L. V., Stout, W., Hartz, S. M., Henson, R. A., & Templin, J. L. (2007). The fusion model skills diagnosis system. In Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment for education: theory and applications (pp. 275-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Stout, W. (2007). Skills diagnosis using IRT-Based continuous latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 313-324.
25. 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.
26. Tatsuoka, C. (2005). Corrigendum: data analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 54, 465-467.
27. Tatsuoka, K. (1983). Rule space: an approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
28. Tatsuoka, K. (1990). Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Safto, M. (Eds.), Monitoring skills and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453-488). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
29. Templin, J., & Henson, R. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287-305.
30. von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (ETS Research Report RR-05-16). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
31. von Davier, M. (2009). Some notes on the reinvention of latent structure models as diagnostic classification models. Measurement, 7, 67-74.
32. von Davier, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2004, October). A class of models for cognitive diagnosis. Paper presented at the 4th Spearman Conference, Philadelphia, PA.