Abstract
Checking that models adequately present data is an essential component of applied statistical inference. Psychometricans increasingly use complex models to analyze test taker’s responses. The appeal of using complex cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) is undeniable, as psychometricians can fit and build models that represent complex cognitive processes in the test while simultaneous controlling observation errors. With a trend toward diagnosing fine-grained skills that are responsible for test performance, both new methods and extensions of existing methods of assessing person-fit in CDMs are required. Posterior predictive method (PP) is the most commonly used method in evaluating the effectiveness of person fit statistics in detecting aberrant response patterns in CDMs. In addition, a less known Bayesian model checking method, prior predictive posterior simulation method (PPPS), will also be used to investigate the effectiveness of chosen person-fit statistics. Three person-fit statistics, log-likelihood statistic (\( l_{\text{z}} \)), un-weighted between-set index (UB), and response conformity index (RCI) are chosen in this study.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cui Y, Li J (2015) Evaluating person fit for cognitive diagnostic assessment. Appl Psychol Measur 39(3):223–238
De la Torre J (2011) The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika 76:179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7
De la Torre J, Douglas JA (2004) Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika 69:333–353
De la Torre J, Zhang Z (2013) Relative and absolute fit evaluation in cognitive diagnosis modeling. J Educ Meas 50:123–140
Dey D, Gelfand A, Swartz T, Vlachos P (1998) A simulation-intensive approach for checking hierarchical models. Test 7(2):325–346
Drasgow F, Levine M, Williams E (1985) Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. Br J Math Stat Psychol 38(1):67–86
Gelman A, Meng X, Stern H (1996) Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Stat Sin 6:733–759
Gelman A, Carlin J, Rubin D, Stern H (2004) Bayesian data analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Guttman L (1950) The basis for scalogram analysis. Meas Predict 4:60–90
Haertel FH (1989) Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. J Educ Meas 26:333–352
Hartz SM (2002) A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: blending theory with practicality. Int Sect B Sci Eng 63(2-B):864
Junker BW, Sijtsma K (2001) Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas 25:258–272
Karabatsos G (2003) Comparing the aberrant response detection performance of thirty-six person-fit statistics. Appl Meas Educ 16:277–298
Maris E (1999) Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika 64:187–212
Mislevy RJ (2006) Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In: Brennan RL (ed) Educational measurement. American Council on Education/Praeger, Westport
R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Rupp AA, Templin JL (2008) Effects of Q-matrix misspecification on parameter estimates and misclassification rates in the DINA model. Educ Psychol Measur 68:78–98
Rupp AA, Templin JL, Henson RA (2010) Diagnostic assessment: theory, methods, and applications. Guilford Press, New York
Smith R (1985) A comparison of rasch person analysis and robust estimators. Educ Psychol Meas 45(3):433
Tasuoka K (1985) A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions in the pattern classification approach. J Educ Stat 12:55–73
Tatsuoka C (2002) Data analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Appl Stat 51:337–350
Wright B, Stone M (1979) Best test design. University of Chicago Social Research, Chicago
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Maomi Ueno.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, N., Alomond, R. Bayesian model checking in cognitive diagnostic models. Behaviormetrika 46, 371–388 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-019-00083-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-019-00083-7