DESIGN AND ANALYSIS IN A COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT

ETS Research Report Series

Volumn 2003, Issue 2, 2003, Pages i-47

  Yan, Duanli ^a   Mislevy, Robert J ^b   Almond, Russell G ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

binary skills model; cognitive diagnosis; latent class; markov chain monte carlo; psychometrics

Indexed keywords

EID: 85164490056     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23308516     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2003.tb01924.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Almond, R. G., & Mislevy, R. J. (1999). Graphical models and computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 223–238.
2. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
3. DiBello, L., Stout, W., & Roussos, L. (1995). Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In P. Nichols, S. Chipman, & R. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 361–389). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179–197.
5. Embretson, S. (Ed.). (1985). Test design: Developments in psychology and psychometrics. New York: Academic Press.
6. Embretson, S. E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 300–396.
7. Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (1988). A class of stochastic procedures for the assessment of knowledge. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 1–23.
8. Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–74.
9. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
10. Haertel, E. H. (1984). An application of latent class models to assessment data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 333–346.
11. Haertel, E. H., & Wiley, D. E. (1993). Representations of ability structures: Implications for testing. In N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevy, & I. I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 359–384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Klein, M. F., Birenbaum, M., Standiford, S. N., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1981). Logical error analysis and construction of tests to diagnose student “bugs” in addition and subtraction of fractions (Research Report 81-6). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.
13. Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187–212.
14. Mead, R. (1976). Assessment of fit of data to the Rasch model through analysis of residuals. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education, MESA.
15. Messick, S. (1992). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
16. Mislevy, R. J. (1995). Probability-based inference in cognitive diagnosis. In P. Nichols, S. Chipman, & R. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 43–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–67.
19. National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, J. Pellegrino, R. Glaser, & N. Chudowsky (Eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
20. Pirolli, P., & Wilson, M. (1998). A theory of the measurement of knowledge content, access, and learning. Psychological Review, 105, 58–82.
21. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N. G., & Gilks, W. R. (1995). BUGS: Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling, Version 0.50. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit.
22. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354.
23. 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: Erlbaum.