Evaluating model estimation processes for diagnostic classification models

Diagnostic classification models (DCMs) are a class of models that define respondent ability on a set of predefined categorical latent variables. In recent years, the popularity of these models has begun to increase. As the community of researchers of practitioners of DCMs grow, it is important to examine the implementation of these models, including the process of model estimation. A key aspect of the estimation process that remains unexplored in the DCM literature is model reduction, or the removal of parameters from the model in order to create a simpler, more parsimonious model. The current study fills this gap in the literature by first applying several model reduction processes on a real data set, the Diagnosing Teachers’ Multiplicative Reasoning assessment (Bradshaw et al., 2014). Results from this analysis indicate that the selection of model reduction process can have large implications for the resulting parameter estimates and respondent classifications. A simulation study is then conducted to evaluate the relative performance of these various model reduction processes. The results of the simulation suggest that all model reduction processes are able to provide quality estimates of the item parameters and respondent masteries, if the model is able to converge. The findings also show that if the full model does not converge, then reducing the structural model provides the best opportunities for achieving a converged solution. Implications of this study and directions for future research are discussed.

[1]  Andrew Izsák,et al.  Diagnosing Teachers’ Understandings of Rational Numbers: Building a Multidimensional Test Within the Diagnostic Classification Framework , 2014 .

[2]  Jonathan Templin,et al.  Extending Cognitive Diagnosis Models to Evaluate the Validity of DSM Criteria for the Diagnosis of Pathological Gambling , 2007 .

[3]  De Ayala,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory , 2008 .

[4]  M. Reckase Multidimensional Item Response Theory , 2009 .

[5]  Richard A. Feinberg,et al.  Conducting Simulation Studies in Psychometrics , 2016 .

[6]  Yihui Xie,et al.  A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R , 2016 .

[7]  R. Devellis Classical Test Theory , 2006, Medical care.

[8]  Geraldine Lear,et al.  Standard setting. , 2003, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[9]  Jeffrey A Douglas,et al.  Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis , 2004 .

[10]  Laine Bradshaw,et al.  An Illustration of Diagnostic Classification Modeling in Student Learning Outcomes Assessment , 2014 .

[11]  D. Vats Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method, 3rd ed. , 2019, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[12]  Jimmy de la Torre,et al.  Analysis of Clinical Data From Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling Framework , 2015 .

[13]  Jeffrey A Douglas,et al.  Test Construction for Cognitive Diagnosis , 2005 .

[14]  Howard Wainer,et al.  When Can We Improve Subscores by Making Them Shorter?: The Case Against Subscores with Overlapping Items , 2014 .

[15]  Tapabrata Maiti,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.) , 2006 .

[16]  N. Lazar,et al.  The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose , 2016 .

[17]  L. T. DeCarlo On the Analysis of Fraction Subtraction Data: The DINA Model, Classification, Latent Class Sizes, and the Q-Matrix , 2011 .

[18]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. , 1968 .

[19]  Phil Wood Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research , 2008 .

[20]  Neal M. Kingston,et al.  Assessing the Structure of the GRE General Test Using Confirmatory Multidimensional Item Response Theory. , 1988 .

[21]  W. Stroup Generalized Linear Mixed Models: Modern Concepts, Methods and Applications , 2012 .

[22]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  Make Dealing with Dates a Little Easier , 2015 .

[23]  Matthias von Davier,et al.  FITTING THE STRUCTURED GENERAL DIAGNOSTIC MODEL TO NAEP DATA , 2008 .

[24]  Shelby J. Haberman,et al.  Do Adjusted Subscores Lack Validity? Don’t Blame the Messenger , 2011 .

[25]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2006 .

[26]  Lisa L. Harlow,et al.  An Illustration of a Longitudinal Cross-Lagged Design for Larger Structural Equation Models , 2003 .

[27]  Russell G. Almond,et al.  Bayesian Networks in Educational Assessment , 2015 .

[28]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[29]  L. Corrado Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal, and Structural Equation Models , 2005 .

[30]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[31]  Wenchao Ma Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications , 2018 .

[32]  David Thissen,et al.  A taxonomy of item response models , 1986 .

[33]  J. Templin,et al.  Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. , 2006, Psychological methods.

[34]  Joshua F. Wiley,et al.  MplusAutomation: An R Package for Facilitating Large-Scale Latent Variable Analyses in Mplus , 2018, Structural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal.

[35]  André A. Rupp,et al.  The Impact of Model Misspecification on Parameter Estimation and Item‐Fit Assessment in Log‐Linear Diagnostic Classification Models , 2012 .

[36]  K. Tatsuoka RULE SPACE: AN APPROACH FOR DEALING WITH MISCONCEPTIONS BASED ON ITEM RESPONSE THEORY , 1983 .

[37]  Edward H. Haertel Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items , 1989 .

[38]  J. Templin,et al.  Unique Characteristics of Diagnostic Classification Models: A Comprehensive Review of the Current State-of-the-Art , 2008 .

[39]  B. Junker,et al.  Cognitive Assessment Models with Few Assumptions, and Connections with Nonparametric Item Response Theory , 2001 .

[40]  M. Reckase The Past and Future of Multidimensional Item Response Theory , 1997 .

[41]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd Edition Extra Exercises , 2012 .

[42]  Sandip Sinharay,et al.  When Can Subscores Be Expected to Have Added Value? Results from Operational and Simulated Data. Research Report. ETS RR-10-16. , 2010 .

[43]  S. Chinn A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[44]  Laine Bradshaw,et al.  Hierarchical Diagnostic Classification Models: A Family of Models for Estimating and Testing Attribute Hierarchies , 2014, Psychometrika.

[45]  Michael R. Harwell,et al.  Monte Carlo Studies in Item Response Theory , 1996 .

[46]  Laine Bradshaw Diagnostic Classification Models , 2016 .

[47]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[48]  Z. Ying,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Q-Matrix Based Diagnostic Classification Models , 2015, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[49]  John T. Willse,et al.  Defining a Family of Cognitive Diagnosis Models Using Log-Linear Models with Latent Variables , 2009 .

[50]  G. Cizek,et al.  Setting performance standards : foundations, methods, and innovations , 2012 .

[51]  Sarah M. Hartz,et al.  A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality. , 2002 .

[52]  Laine Bradshaw,et al.  Combining Item Response Theory and Diagnostic Classification Models: A Psychometric Model for Scaling Ability and Diagnosing Misconceptions , 2014, Psychometrika.

[53]  Matthew Rockloff,et al.  An SEM Algorithm for Scale Reduction Incorporating Evaluation of Multiple Psychometric Criteria , 2018 .

[54]  Yihui Xie,et al.  bookdown: Authoring Books and Technical Documents with R Markdown , 2016 .

[55]  S. Sclove Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis , 1987 .

[56]  Jan-Willem Romeijn,et al.  ‘All models are wrong...’: an introduction to model uncertainty , 2012 .

[57]  Pascal Bouvry,et al.  Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) vs. In-House HPC Platform: A Cost Analysis , 2016, 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD).

[58]  Akihito Kamata,et al.  A Bifactor Multidimensional Item Response Theory Model for Differential Item Functioning Analysis on Testlet-Based Items , 2011 .

[59]  K. Tatsuoka Toward an Integration of Item-Response Theory and Cognitive Error Diagnosis. , 1987 .

[60]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[61]  Jimmy de la Torre,et al.  An Empirically Based Method of Q‐Matrix Validation for the DINA Model: Development and Applications , 2008 .

[62]  P. Hewson Bayesian Data Analysis 3rd edn A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari and D. B. Rubin, 2013 Boca Raton, Chapman and Hall–CRC 676 pp., £44.99 ISBN 1‐439‐84095‐4 , 2015 .

[63]  Jj Allaire,et al.  Dynamic Documents for R , 2016 .

[64]  J. Templin,et al.  The Effects of Q-Matrix Misspecification on Parameter Estimates and Classification Accuracy in the DINA Model , 2008 .

[65]  John L. Perry,et al.  Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling , 2015 .