Search

As a core component of most cognitive diagnosis models, the Q‐matrix, or item and attribute association matrix, is typically developed by domain experts, and tends to be subjective. It is critical to validate the Q‐matrix empirically because a misspecified Q‐matrix could result in erroneous attribute estimation. Most existing Q‐matrix validation procedures are developed for dichotomous responses. However, in this paper, we propose a method to empirically detect and correct the misspecifications in the Q‐matrix for graded response data based on the sequential generalized deterministic inputs, noisy 'and' gate (G‐DINA) model. The proposed Q‐matrix validation procedure is implemented in a stepwise manner based on the Wald test and an effect size measure. The feasibility of the proposed method is examined using simulation studies. Also, a set of data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2011 mathematics assessment is analysed for illustration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Affinity propagation is a message‐passing‐based clustering procedure that has received widespread attention in domains such as biological science, physics, and computer science. However, its implementation in psychology and related areas of social science is comparatively scant. In this paper, we describe the basic principles of affinity propagation, its relationship to other clustering problems, and the types of data for which it can be used for cluster analysis. More importantly, we identify the strengths and weaknesses of affinity propagation as a clustering tool in general and highlight potential opportunities for its use in psychological research. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate the method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivated by the recent replication and reproducibility crisis, Gelman and Carlin (2014, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 9, 641) advocated focusing on controlling for Type S/M errors, instead of the classic Type I/II errors, when conducting hypothesis testing. In this paper, we aim to fill several theoretical gaps in the methodology proposed by Gelman and Carlin (2014, Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 9, 641). In particular, we derive the closed‐form expression for the expected Type M error, and study the mathematical properties of the probability of Type S error as well as the expected Type M error, such as monotonicity. We demonstrate the advantages of our results through numerical and empirical examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]