Abstract
Cognitive diagnosis models are partially ordered latent class models and are used to classify students into skill mastery profiles. The deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate model (DINA) is a popular psychometric model for cognitive diagnosis. Application of the DINA model requires content expert knowledge of a Q matrix, which maps the attributes or skills needed to master a collection of items. Misspecification of Q has been shown to yield biased diagnostic classifications. We propose a Bayesian framework for estimating the DINA Q matrix. The developed algorithm builds upon prior research (Chen, Liu, Xu, & Ying, in J Am Stat Assoc 110(510):850–866, 2015) and ensures the estimated Q matrix is identified. Monte Carlo evidence is presented to support the accuracy of parameter recovery. The developed methodology is applied to Tatsuoka’s fraction-subtraction dataset.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chen, Y., Liu, J., Xu, G., & Ying, Z. (2015). Statistical analysis of Q-matrix based diagnostic classification models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(510), 850–866.
Chiu, C.-Y. (2013). Statistical refinement of the Q-matrix in cognitive diagnosis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(8), 598–618.
Chiu, C.-Y., Douglas, J. A., & Li, X. (2009). Cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: Theory and applications. Psychometrika, 74(4), 633–665.
Chiu, C.-Y., & Köhn, H.-F. (2016). The reduced RUM as a logit model: Parameterization and constraints. Psychometrika, 81(2), 350–370.
Chiu, C.-Y., Köhn, H.-F., & Wu, H.-M. (2016). Fitting the reduced RUM with Mplus: A tutorial. International Journal of Testing, 16, 1–21.
Chung, M. (2014). Estimating the Q-matrix for Cognitive Diagnosis Models in a Bayesian Framework (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University.
Cowles, M. K., & Carlin, B. P. (1996). Markov chain Monte Carlo convergence diagnostics: A comparative review. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 883–904.
Culpepper, S. A. (2015). Bayesian estimation of the DINA model with Gibbs sampling. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(5), 454–476.
DeCarlo, L. T. (2010). On the analysis of fraction subtraction data: The DINA model, classification, latent class sizes, and the Q-matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 8–26.
DeCarlo, L. T. (2012). Recognizing uncertainty in the Q-matrix via a Bayesian extension of the DINA model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 447–468.
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), 343–362.
de la Torre, J. (2009). Estimation code for the G-DINA model. In Presentation at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
de la Torre, J., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2016). A general method of empirical Q-matrix validation. Psychometrika, 81(2), 253–273.
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69(3), 333–353.
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2008). Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: An analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika, 73(4), 595–624.
Geweke, J. (1992). Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. Bayesian Statistics, 4, 169–188.
Henson, R., & Templin, J. (2007). Importance of Q-matrix construction and its effects cognitive diagnosis model results. In Annual meeting of the national council on measurement in education. Chicago, IL.
Henson, R., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210.
Huff, K., & Goodman, D. P. (2007). The demand for cognitive diagnostic assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 19–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (2007). Why cognitive diagnostic assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 3–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. (2017). On the consistency of Q-matrix estimation: A commentary. Psychometrika, 82(2), 523–527.
Liu, J., Xu, G., & Ying, Z. (2012). Data-driven learning of Q-matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(7), 548–564.
Liu, J., Xu, G., & Ying, Z. (2013). Theory of the self-learning Q-matrix. Bernoulli, 19(5A), 1790–1817.
Mislevy, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1996). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation for a psychometric model of discontinuous development. Psychometrika, 61(1), 41–71.
Norris, S. P., Macnab, J. S., & Phillips, L. M. (2007). Cognitive modeling of performance on diagnostic achievement tests. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 61–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rupp, A. A. (2009). Software for calibrating diagnostic classification models: An overview of the current state-of-the-art. In Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Rupp, A. A., & Templin, J. L. (2008). The effects of Q-matrix misspecification on parameter estimates and classification accuracy in the DINA model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(1), 78–96.
Rupp, A. A., Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Tatsuoka, C. (2002). Data analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 51(3), 337–350.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1984). Analysis of errors in fraction addition and subtraction problems. Computer-Based Education Research Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). A Bayesian method for incorporating uncertainty into Q-matrix estimation in skills assessment. In Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Templin, J. L., & Hoffman, L. (2013). Obtaining diagnostic classification model estimates using Mplus. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(2), 37–50.
von Davier, M. (2014). The DINA model as a constrained general diagnostic model: Two variants of a model equivalency. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(1), 49–71.
Xiang, R. (2013). Nonlinear Penalized Estimation of True Q-matrix in Cognitive Diagnostic Models (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University.
Xu, G., & Zhang, S. (2016). Identifiability of diagnostic classification models. Psychometrika, 81(3), 625–649.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, Y., Culpepper, S.A., Chen, Y. et al. Bayesian Estimation of the DINA Q matrix. Psychometrika 83, 89–108 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9579-4
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9579-4