Efficient Models for Cognitive Diagnosis With Continuous and Mixed-Type Latent Variables

The issue of latent trait granularity in diagnostic models is considered, comparing and contrasting latent trait and latent class models used for diagnosis. Relationships between conjunctive cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) with binary attributes and noncompensatory multidimensional item response models are explored, leading to a continuous generalization of the Noisy Input, Deterministic “And” Gate (NIDA) model. A model that combines continuous and discrete latent variables is proposed that includes a noncompensatory item response theory (IRT) term and a term following the discrete attribute Deterministic Input, Noisy “And” Gate (DINA) model in cognitive diagnosis. The Tatsuoka fraction subtraction data are analyzed with the proposed models as well as with the DINA model, and classification results are compared. The applicability of the continuous latent trait model and the combined IRT and CDM is discussed, and arguments are given for development of simple models for complex cognitive structures.

[1]  E. Maris.  Estimating multiple classification latent class models , 1999 .

[2]  Curtis Tatsuoka,et al.  Data analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models , 2002 .

[3]  S. Embretson.  A general latent trait model for response processes , 1984 .

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

[5]  Hal S. Stern,et al.  Posterior Predictive Assessment of Item Response Theory Models , 2006 .

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

[7]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Posterior Predictive Model Checking for Multidimensionality in Item Response Theory , 2006 .

[8]  B. Junker,et al.  Nonparametric Item Response Theory in Action: An Overview of the Special Issue , 2001 .

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

[10]  Kikumi K. Tatsuoka,et al.  A Probabilistic Model for Diagnosing Misconceptions By The Pattern Classification Approach , 1985 .

[11]  W. D. Linden.  Multidimensionality in item response theory , 2013 .

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

[13]  Matthias von Davier,et al.  A GENERAL DIAGNOSTIC MODEL APPLIED TO LANGUAGE TESTING DATA , 2005 .

[14]  Susan E. Whitely,et al.  Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests , 1980 .

[15]  J. D. L. Torre,et al.  The Generalized DINA Model Framework. , 2011 .

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

[17]  Louis Roussos,et al.  THE FUSION MODEL FOR SKILLS DIAGNOSIS: BLENDING THEORY WITH PRACTICALITY , 2008 .

[18]  Kentaro Yamamoto,et al.  HYBRID MODEL OF IRT AND LATENT CLASS MODELS , 1982 .

[19]  Russell G. Almond,et al.  Assessing Fit of Cognitive Diagnostic Models A Case Study , 2007 .

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

[21]  Identifiers California,et al.  Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , 1998 .

[22]  Matthias von Davier,et al.  A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. , 2008, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[23]  Chia-Yi Chiu.  Statistical Refinement of the Q-Matrix in Cognitive Diagnosis , 2013 .