Skip to main content
Log in

Bayesian model checking in cognitive diagnostic models

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Behaviormetrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • De la Torre J (2011) The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika 76:179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • De la Torre J, Douglas JA (2004) Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika 69:333–353

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • De la Torre J, Zhang Z (2013) Relative and absolute fit evaluation in cognitive diagnosis modeling. J Educ Meas 50:123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey D, Gelfand A, Swartz T, Vlachos P (1998) A simulation-intensive approach for checking hierarchical models. Test 7(2):325–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Meng X, Stern H (1996) Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Stat Sin 6:733–759

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Carlin J, Rubin D, Stern H (2004) Bayesian data analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman L (1950) The basis for scalogram analysis. Meas Predict 4:60–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Haertel FH (1989) Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. J Educ Meas 26:333–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker BW, Sijtsma K (2001) Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas 25:258–272

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Karabatsos G (2003) Comparing the aberrant response detection performance of thirty-six person-fit statistics. Appl Meas Educ 16:277–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maris E (1999) Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika 64:187–212

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy RJ (2006) Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In: Brennan RL (ed) Educational measurement. American Council on Education/Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp AA, Templin JL, Henson RA (2010) Diagnostic assessment: theory, methods, and applications. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (1985) A comparison of rasch person analysis and robust estimators. Educ Psychol Meas 45(3):433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasuoka K (1985) A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions in the pattern classification approach. J Educ Stat 12:55–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatsuoka C (2002) Data analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Appl Stat 51:337–350

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wright B, Stone M (1979) Best test design. University of Chicago Social Research, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nan Wang.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-019-00083-7

Keywords

Navigation