On the Identifiability of Diagnostic Classification Models
- 94 Downloads
This paper establishes fundamental results for statistical analysis based on diagnostic classification models (DCMs). The results are developed at a high level of generality and are applicable to essentially all diagnostic classification models. In particular, we establish identifiability results for various modeling parameters, notably item response probabilities, attribute distribution, and Q-matrix-induced partial information structure. These results are stated under a general setting of latent class models. Through a nonparametric Bayes approach, we construct an estimator that can be shown to be consistent when the identifiability conditions are satisfied. Simulation results show that these estimators perform well under various model settings. We also apply the proposed method to a dataset from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC).
Keywordsidentifiability diagnostic classification models Dirichlet allocation
This research is supported in part by NSF IIS-1633360 and SES-1826540.
- DiBello, L. V., Stout, W. F., & Roussos, L. A. (1995). Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In S. F. Chipman, P. D. Nichols, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 361–389). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Grant, B. F., Kaplan, K., Shepard, J., & Moore, T. (2003). Source and accuracy statement for wave 1 of the 2001–2002 national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.Google Scholar
- Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2018). The sufficient and necessary condition for the identifiability and estimability of the DINA model. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9619-8.
- Hartz, S. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
- Liu, J., Xu, G., & Ying, Z. (2012). Data-driven learning of \(Q\)-matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 609–618.Google Scholar
- Rupp, A. A., & Templin, J. L. (2008b). Unique characteristics of diagnostic classification models: A comprehensive review of the current state-of-the-art. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 6, 219–262.Google Scholar
- Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Sethuraman, J. (1994). A constructive definition of Dirichlet priors. Statistica Sinica, 4, 639–650.Google Scholar
- Tatsuoka, K. K. (2009). Cognitive assessment: An introduction to the rule space method. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Templin, J., He, X., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (2003). The pseudo-item method: a simple technique for analysis of polytomous data with the fusion model. External diagnostic research group technical report.Google Scholar
- von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnosis model applied to language testing data. Research report: Educational testing service.Google Scholar
- Vonesh, E. F., & Chinchilli, V. G. (1997). Linear and nonlinear models for the analysis of repeated measurements. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar