Diagnostic Classification Modeling with flexMIRT

  • Li CaiEmail author
  • Carrie R. Houts
Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)


In this chapter, we will focus on the use of flexMIRT® (Cai L, flexMIRT® version 3.5: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Vector Psychometric Group, LLC, Chapel Hill, 2017) for estimating certain core diagnostic models that have seen practical application, as well as to illustrate the specialized capabilities the software offers. flexMIRT is a commercially available, stand-alone, general purpose item response theory (IRT) software program that is compatible with machines running Windows 7.0 or later. The basic DCM model in flexMIRT is described in Cai, Choi, Hansen, and Harrell (Annu Rev Stat Appl 3:297–321, 2016) as well as in Hansen, Cai, Monroe, and Li (Br J Math Stat Psychol 69:225–252, 2016) in slightly more restricted form. It is an extension of the log-linear cognitive diagnostic model (LCDM) described by Henson, Templin, and Willse (Psychometrika 74:191–210, 2009) with extra random effects to handle cases of possible local dependence.


  1. Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cai, L. (2015). Lord-Wingersky algorithm version 2.0 for hierarchical item factor models with applications in test scoring, scale alignment, and model fit testing. Psychometrika, 80, 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cai, L. (2017). flexMIRT ® version 3.5: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric Group, LLC.Google Scholar
  4. Cai, L., Choi, K., Hansen, M., & Harrell, L. (2016). Item response theory. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 3, 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai, L., & Hansen, M. (2013). Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of hierarchical item factor models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai, L., Yang, J., & Hansen, M. (2011). Generalized full information bifactor analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indices for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. (1992). Full-information item bifactor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen, M., Cai, L., Monroe, S., & Li, Z. (2016). Limited-information goodness-of fit testing of diagnostic classification item response theory models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henson, R., Templin, J. L., & Willse, J. T. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Junker, B., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2005). Limited and full information estimation and testing in 2n contingency tables: A unified framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 1009–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rijmen, F. (2009). Efficient full-information maximum likelihood estimation for multidimensional IRT models (Technical Report No. RR-09-03). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  17. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980, June). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  18. Tatsuoka, C. (2002). Data-analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics), 51, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Vector Psychometric Group, LLCChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations