A Sequential Process Model for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment With Repeated Attempts

When diagnostic assessments are administered to examinees, the mastery status of each examinee on a set of specified cognitive skills or attributes can be directly evaluated using cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs). Under certain circumstances, allowing the examinees to have at least one opportunity to correctly answer the questions and assessments, with repeated attempts on the items, provides many potential benefits. A sequential process model can be extended to model repeated attempts in diagnostic assessments. Two formulations of the sequential generalized deterministic-input noisy-“and”-gate (G-DINA) model were developed in this study. The first extension uses the latent transition analysis (LTA) approach to model changes in the attributes over attempts, and the second extension constructs a higher order structure of latent continuous variables and latent attributes to account for the dependences of the attributes over attempts. Accurate model parameter estimation and correct classifications of attributes were observed in a series of simulations using Bayesian estimation. The effectiveness of the developed sequential G-DINA model was demonstrated by fitting real data from a longitudinal mathematical test to the developed model and the longitudinal G-DINA model using the LTA approach. Finally, this article closes by discussing several important issues associated with the developed models and providing suggestions for future directions.

[1]  Wen-Chung Wang,et al.  Variable‐Length Computerized Adaptive Testing Using the Higher Order DINA Model , 2015 .

[2]  Hung-Yu Huang,et al.  Multilevel Cognitive Diagnosis Models for Assessing Changes in Latent Attributes. , 2017 .

[3]  Yigal Attali,et al.  Immediate Feedback and Opportunity to Revise Answers , 2011 .

[4]  Steven Andrew Culpepper,et al.  If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again , 2014 .

[5]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations , 1998 .

[6]  A. Cohen,et al.  A Latent Transition Analysis Model for Assessing Change in Cognitive Skills , 2016, Educational and psychological measurement.

[7]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Retrieval-Based Learning: A Perspective for Enhancing Meaningful Learning , 2012 .

[8]  Jimmy de la Torre,et al.  Model Evaluation and Multiple Strategies in Cognitive Diagnosis: An Analysis of Fraction Subtraction Data , 2008 .

[9]  Walter L. Leite,et al.  Assessing Change in Latent Skills Across Time With Longitudinal Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling: An Evaluation of Model Performance , 2017, Educational and psychological measurement.

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

[11]  F. Samejima Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores , 1969 .

[12]  Young-sun Lee,et al.  Investigating the Impact of Item Parameter Drift for Item Response Theory Models with Mixture Distributions , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[13]  David V. Budescu,et al.  A Comparative Study of Measures of Partial Knowledge in Multiple-Choice Tests , 1997 .

[14]  L. Gosse,et al.  Test Anxiety and the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique , 2006 .

[15]  J A Spray One-parameter item response theory models for psychomotor tests involving repeated, independent attempts. , 1990, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[16]  J H Albert,et al.  Sequential Ordinal Modeling with Applications to Survival Data , 2001, Biometrics.

[17]  W Akkermans Modelling sequentially scored item responses. , 2000, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[18]  Wenchao Ma,et al.  A sequential cognitive diagnosis model for polytomous responses. , 2016, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[19]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? , 2012, Memory & cognition.

[20]  A. Kluger,et al.  The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. , 1996 .

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

[22]  Url PubMed Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping , 2012 .

[23]  G. Tutz Sequential item response models with an ordered response , 1990 .

[24]  Jimmy de la Torre,et al.  Factors Affecting the Item Parameter Estimation and Classification Accuracy of the DINA Model , 2010 .

[25]  Jeff Douglas,et al.  Sequential detection of learning in cognitive diagnosis. , 2016, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

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

[27]  José Muñiz,et al.  The Answer-Until-Correct Item Format Revisited , 2011 .

[28]  Jimmy de la Torre,et al.  Relative and Absolute Fit Evaluation in Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling. , 2013 .

[29]  G. Brosvic,et al.  Immediate Feedback during Academic Testing , 2001, Psychological reports.

[30]  Mark J. Gierl,et al.  Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications. , 2007 .

[31]  A note on the equivalence of the graded response model and the sequential model , 2001 .

[32]  Chia-Yi Chiu,et al.  A General Method of Empirical Q-matrix Validation , 2016, Psychometrika.

[33]  A Multilevel Higher Order Item Response Theory Model for Measuring Latent Growth in Longitudinal Data , 2015, Applied psychological measurement.

[34]  Jonathan Templin,et al.  Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications , 2010 .

[35]  Hung-Yu Huang,et al.  The Random‐Effect DINA Model , 2014 .

[36]  Kristen Huff,et al.  Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: The Demand for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment , 2007 .

[37]  Donald E. Powers,et al.  Immediate Feedback and Opportunity to Revise Answers to Open-Ended Questions , 2010 .