Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2013.14.8.3748

A Study on the Factors Affecting Examinee Classification Accuracy under DINA Model : Focused on Examinee Classification Methods  

Kim, Ji-Hyo (Division of Education, Chungnam National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society / v.14, no.8, 2013 , pp. 3748-3759 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the classification accuracies of ML, MAP, and EAP methods under DINA model. For this purpose, this study examined the classification accuracies of the classification methods under the various conditions: the number of attributes, the ability distribution of examinees, and test length. To accomplish this purpose, this study used a simulation method. For the simulation study, data was simulated under the various simulation conditions including the number of attributes (K= 5, 7), the ability distribution of examinees (high, middle, low), and test length (J= 15, 30, 45). Additionally, the percent of agreements between true skill patterns(true ${\alpha}$) and skill patterns estimated by the ML, MAP, and EAP methods were calculated. The summary of the main results of this study is as follows: First, When the number of attributes was 5 and 7, the EAP method showed relatively higher average in the percent of exact agreement than the ML and MAP methods. Second, under the same conditions, as the number of attributes increased, the average percent of exact agreement decreased in ML, MAP, and EAP methods. Third, when the prior distribution of examinees ability was different from low to high under the conditions of the same test length, the EAP method showed relatively higher average in the percent of exact agreement than those of the ML and MAP methods. Fourth, the average percent of exact agreement increased in all methods, ML, MAP, and EAP when the test length increased from 15 to 30 and 45 under the conditions of the same the ability distribution of examinees.
Keywords
Cognitive diagnosis; DINA model; Classification accuracy; Classification methods;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ban, J, C, Kim, S (2012). A Comparison of Skill Mastery Estimation Methods for DINA and Changes of Skill Masteries of Elementary Students. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 25(4), 721-744.
2 Cheng, Y. (2009). When cognitive diagnosis meets computerized adaptive testing: CD-CAT. Psychometrika, 74(4), 619-632. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9123-2   DOI
3 Chiu, C. Y., Douglas, J. A., & Li, X. (2009). Cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: Theory and applications. Psychometrika, 74(4), 633-665. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9125-0   DOI
4 Cui, Y., Gierl, M. J., & Chang, H. H. (2012). Estimating classification consistency and accuracy for cognitive diagnostic assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 49(1), 19-38. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2011.00158.x   DOI   ScienceOn
5 de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically-based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 343-363. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2008.00069.x   DOI   ScienceOn
6 de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 115-130. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/1076998607309474   DOI
7 de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 179-199. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7   DOI
8 de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69(3), 333-353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02295640   DOI   ScienceOn
9 de la Torre, J., Hong, Y., & Deng, W. (2010). Factors affecting the item parameter estimation and classification accuracy of the DINA model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(2), 227-249. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2010.00110.x   DOI   ScienceOn
10 DiBello, L. V., Stout, W. F., & Roussos, L. A. (1995). Unified cognitive psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment(pp. 361-390). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11 Fu, J., & Li, Y. (2007, April). An integrative review of cognitively diagnostic psychometric models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Chicago, IL.
12 Hartz, S. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the Unified Model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practice. Doctoral thesis, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
13 Henson, R. A., & Templin, J. L. (2009, April). Q-matrix construction. Paper presented at 2009 NCME training session. San Francisco, CA.
14 Huebner, A., & Wang, B. (2011). A note on comparing examinee classification methods for cognitive diagnosis models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(2), 407-419. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164410388832   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 258-272. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01466210122032064   DOI
16 Kim, S, E, Park, Y, S, & Lee, Y, S (2012). Application of Latent Class Model to Multiple Strategy CDM Analysis. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 25(1), 49-68.
17 Kang, T, H, Park, C, H, & Kim, I, S (2011) The effects of test length and performance-level number on classification consistency and accuracy. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 24(4), 1017-1038.
18 Kim, H, K, Han, J, A, Choi, S, G, Kim, B, M (2012). The Application of Cognitive Diagnostic Model for Achievement Profile Analysis and Score Report(RRE 2012-7). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
19 Kim, S, H, Kim, S, J, &, Song, M, Y (2008). Using Cognitive Diagnosis Theory to Analyze the Test Results of Mathematics. Journal of Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics School Mathematics. 10(2), 259-277.   과학기술학회마을
20 Kim, S, H, Song, M, Y (2011). Diagnosis of knowledge states using large scale assessments: An application of DINA model. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 14(1), 177-200.
21 Kunina, O., Rupp, A. A., & Wilhelm, O. (2008, June 29-July 2). Convergence of skill profiles for cognitive diagnosis models and other multidimensional scaling approaches: An empirical illustration with a diagnostic mathematics assessment. Paper presented at the annual international Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Druham, NH.
22 Lee, J, S (2009). Present Educational evaluation. Seoul: Kyoyookgwahaksa.
23 Lee, Y, S, Park, Y, S, Song, M, Y, Kim, S, E, Lee, Y, J, In, B, R (2012). Investigating Score Reporting of Attribute Profiles from the National Assessment of Educational Achievement using Cognitive Diagnostic Models. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 25(3), 411-433.
24 R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
25 Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 435-354. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1983.tb00212.x   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Rupp, A. A., & Templin, J. L. (2008a). The effects of Q-matrix misspecification on parameter estimates and classification accuracy in the DINA model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 78-96. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164407301545   DOI
27 Rupp, A. A., Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and application. NY: The Guilford press.
28 Song, M, Y, Lee, Y, S, & Park, Y, S (2011). Analysis and score reporting based on cognitive diagnostic models using the National Assessment of Educational Achievement(RRE 2011-8). Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
29 Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods. 11(3), 287-305. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.287   DOI   ScienceOn