Advertisement

Assessing the Dimensionality of the Latent Attribute Space in Cognitive Diagnosis Through Testing for Conditional Independence

  • Youn Seon LimEmail author
  • Fritz Drasgow
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 265)

Abstract

Cognitive diagnosis seeks to assess an examinee’s mastery of a set of cognitive skills called (latent) attributes. The entire set of attributes characterizing a particular ability domain is often referred to as the latent attribute space. The correct specification of the latent attribute space is essential in cognitive diagnosis because misspecifications of the latent attribute space result in inaccurate parameter estimates, and ultimately, in the incorrect assessment of examinees’ ability. Misspecifications of the latent attribute space typically lead to violations of conditional independence. In this article, the Mantel-Haenszel statistic (Lim & Drasgow in J Classif, 2019) is implemented to detect possible misspecifications of the latent attribute space by checking for conditional independence of the items of a test with parametric cognitive diagnosis models. The performance of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic is evaluated in simulation studies based on its Type-I-error rate and power.

Keywords

Cognitive diagnosis model Dimensionality Mantel-haenszel statistic 

References

  1. Chen, J., de la Torre, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Relative and absolute fit evaluation in cognitive diagnosis modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, W., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179–199.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lim, Y. S., & Drasgow, F. (2019). Conditional independence and dimensionality of nonparametric cognitive diagnostic models: A test for model fit. Journal of,. Classification.Google Scholar
  5. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.Google Scholar
  7. Robitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., George, A. C., & Uenlue, A. (2015). CDM: Cognitive diagnostic modeling. R package version 3.4–21.Google Scholar
  8. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumption of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425–436.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rupp, A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. (2010). Diagnostic assessment: Theory, methods, and applications. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–618.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science EducationDonald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/NorthwellHempsteadUSA
  2. 2.School of Labor & Employment Relations, Department of PsychologyChampaignUSA
  3. 3.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations