Search

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are used in educational, clinical, or personnel selection settings to classify respondents with respect to discrete attributes, identifying strengths and needs, and thus allowing to provide tailored training/treatment. As in any assessment, an accurate reliability estimation is crucial for valid score interpretations. In this sense, most CDM reliability indices are based on the posterior probabilities of the estimated attribute profiles. These posteriors are traditionally computed using point estimates for the model parameters as approximations to their populational values. If the uncertainty around these parameters is unaccounted for, the posteriors may be overly peaked, deriving into overestimated reliabilities. This article presents a multiple imputation (MI) procedure to integrate out the model parameters in the estimation of the posterior distributions, thus correcting the reliability estimation. A simulation study was conducted to compare the MI procedure with the traditional reliability estimation. Five factors were manipulated: the attribute structure, the CDM model (DINA and G-DINA), test length, sample size, and item quality. Additionally, an illustration using the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English data was analyzed. The effect of sample size was studied by sampling subsets of subjects from the complete data. In both studies, the traditional reliability estimation systematically provided overestimated reliabilities, whereas the MI procedure offered more accurate results. Accordingly, practitioners in small educational or clinical settings should be aware that the reliability estimation using model parameter point estimates may be positively biased. R codes for the MI procedure are made available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Psicologia Educativa is the property of Colegio Oficial de Psicologos de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Q‐matrix identifies the subset of attributes measured by each item in the cognitive diagnosis modelling framework. Usually constructed by domain experts, the Q‐matrix might contain some misspecifications, disrupting classification accuracy. Empirical Q‐matrix validation methods such as the general discrimination index (GDI) and Wald have shown promising results in addressing this problem. However, a cut‐off point is used in both methods, which might be suboptimal. To address this limitation, the Hull method is proposed and evaluated in the present study. This method aims to find the optimal balance between fit and parsimony, and it is flexible enough to be used either with a measure of item discrimination (the proportion of variance accounted for, PVAF) or a coefficient of determination (pseudo‐R2). Results from a simulation study showed that the Hull method consistently showed the best performance and shortest computation time, especially when used with the PVAF. The Wald method also performed very well overall, while the GDI method obtained poor results when the number of attributes was high. The absence of a cut‐off point provides greater flexibility to the Hull method, and it places it as a comprehensive solution to the Q‐matrix specification problem in applied settings. This proposal is illustrated using real data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decisions on how to calibrate an item bank might have major implications in the subsequent performance of the adaptive algorithms. One of these decisions is model selection, which can become problematic in the context of cognitive diagnosis computerized adaptive testing, given the wide range of models available. This article aims to determine whether model selection indices can be used to improve the performance of adaptive tests. Three factors were considered in a simulation study, that is, calibration sample size, Q-matrix complexity, and item bank length. Results based on the true item parameters, and general and single reduced model estimates were compared to those of the combination of appropriate models. The results indicate that fitting a single reduced model or a general model will not generally provide optimal results. Results based on the combination of models selected by the fit index were always closer to those obtained with the true item parameters. The implications for practical settings include an improvement in terms of classification accuracy and, consequently, testing time, and a more balanced use of the item bank. An R package was developed, named cdcatR, to facilitate adaptive applications in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) allow classifying respondents into a set of discrete attribute profiles. The internal structure of the test is determined in a Q-matrix, whose correct specification is necessary to achieve an accurate attribute profile classification. Several empirical Q-matrix estimation and validation methods have been proposed with the aim of providing well-specified Q-matrices. However, these methods require the number of attributes to be set in advance. No systematic studies about CDMs dimensionality assessment have been conducted, which contrasts with the vast existing literature for the factor analysis framework. To address this gap, the present study evaluates the performance of several dimensionality assessment methods from the factor analysis literature in determining the number of attributes in the context of CDMs. The explored methods were parallel analysis, minimum average partial, very simple structure, DETECT, empirical Kaiser criterion, exploratory graph analysis, and a machine learning factor forest model. Additionally, a model comparison approach was considered, which consists in comparing the model-fit of empirically estimated Q-matrices. The performance of these methods was assessed by means of a comprehensive simulation study that included different generating number of attributes, item qualities, sample sizes, ratios of the number of items to attribute, correlations among the attributes, attributes thresholds, and generating CDM. Results showed that parallel analysis (with Pearson correlations and mean eigenvalue criterion), factor forest model, and model comparison (with AIC) are suitable alternatives to determine the number of attributes in CDM applications, with an overall percentage of correct estimates above 76% of the conditions. The accuracy increased to 97% when these three methods agreed on the number of attributes. In short, the present study supports the use of three methods in assessing the dimensionality of CDMs. This will allow to test the assumption of correct dimensionality present in the Q-matrix estimation and validation methods, as well as to gather evidence of validity to support the use of the scores obtained with these models. The findings of this study are illustrated using real data from an intelligence test to provide guidelines for assessing the dimensionality of CDM data in applied settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]