Loglinear Cognitive Diagnostic Model (LCDM)

  • Robert HensonEmail author
  • Jonathan L. Templin
Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)


The Log-Linear Cognitive Diagnosis Model (LCDM; Henson RA, Templin J, Willse J, Psychometrika 74:191–210, 2009) provides a general approach to diagnostic modeling that is deeply tied to log-linear models. As a result, the parameterization and concepts of the LCDM can be directly tied to the concepts of a general linear model for use of a multiple way ANOVA. By using these concepts, the LCDM provides a general framework that does not require the user to specifically determine the relationship between the attributes and the probability of a correct response. Furthermore, because of its flexibility, this chapter will show that the LCDM can be used to discuss similarities and differences between many common diagnostic models. This chapter will first provide a theoretical introduction to the motivation and the definition of the LCDM. Next, typical tools that have been used to estimate the LCDM and measures of fit are discussed. Finally, this chapter will discuss the relationship of other diagnostic models to the LCDM and, as a result, provide a succinct definition of what is meant by disjunctive, compensatory, and conjunctive models.


  1. Agresti, A. (2003). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Son.Google Scholar
  2. Cai, L. (2017). flexMIRT version 3.51: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric Group.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, R. P. (2012). Mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DiBello, L. V., Stout, W. F., & Roussos, L. A. (1995). Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 361–389). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1999). Knowledge spaces. Berlin, Germany: Springer, Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. George, A. C., Robitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., Gross, J., & Uenlue, A. (2016). The R package CDM for cognitive diagnosis models. Journal of Statistical Software, 74(2), 1–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hartz, S. M. (2001) A Bayesian framework for the Unified Model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality (Ph. D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).Google Scholar
  9. Henson, R. A., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Lao, H. (2016). Estimation of diagnostic classification models without constraints: Issues with class label switching (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).Google Scholar
  12. Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2005). Limited-and full-information estimation and goodness-of-fit testing in 2 n contingency tables: A unified framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(471), 1009–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  14. Rupp, A. A., Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tatsuoka, K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Templin, J., & Henson, R. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Templin, J., & Hoffman, L. (2013). Obtaining diagnostic classification model estimates using Mplus. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(2), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(2), 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Research Methodology (ERM) DepartmentThe University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA
  2. 2.Educational Measurement and Statistics ProgramUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations