Advertisement

Diagnostic Modeling of Skill Hierarchies and Cognitive Processes with MLTM-D

  • Susan E. EmbretsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)

Abstract

This chapter formally describes the multicomponent latent trait model for diagnosis (MLTM-D; Embretson S.E., Yang X, Psychometrika 78:14–36, 2013) and then provides examples of applications to diagnose broad and narrow skills, as well as measure processing complexity and attainment. MLTM-D can be applied to diagnose either skill mastery or cognitive processing capabilities of examinees. MLTM-D is readily applicable to diagnose hierarchically-structured skills or to assess cognitive processes with postulated sources of complexity. That is, MLTM-D is a multidimensional conjunctive model for item responses that are impacted by varying underlying components with specifiable sources of complexity. MLTM-D can be applied to assess both processing competencies of examinees and the impact of the postulated features on process difficulty.

References

  1. Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.Google Scholar
  2. Daniel, R. C., & Embretson, S. E. (2010). Designing cognitive complexity in mathematical problem solving items. Applied Psychological Measurement, XX, 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. du Toit, M. (2003). IRT from SSI. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Embretson, S. E. (1997). Multicomponent latent trait models. In W. van der Linden & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 305–322). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Embretson, S. E. (2015). The multicomponent latent trait model for diagnosis: Applications to heterogeneous test domains. Invited paper for Applied Psychological Measurement, XX, 6–30.Google Scholar
  6. Embretson, S. E., & Daniel, R. C. (2008). Understanding and quantifying cognitive complexity level in mathematical problem solving items. Psychology Science, 50, 328–344.Google Scholar
  7. Embretson, S. E., Morrison, K., & Jun, H. W. (2015). Reliability of diagnosing broad and narrow skills with the multicomponent latent trait model: A study of middle school mathematics. In L. Andries van der Ark, D. M. Bolt, W.-C. Wang, J. M. Douglas, & S.-M. Chow (Eds.), Quantitative psychology research. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Embretson, S. E., & Yang, X. (2013). A multicomponent latent trait model for diagnosis. Psychometrika, 78, 14–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hensen, R. A., Templin, J. L., & Willse, J. T. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 1919–1210.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, C., & Sheehan, K. (1990). Using Bayesian decision theory to design a computerized mastery test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayer, R. (2003). Mathematical problem solving. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition: A volume in current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction (pp. 69–92). Cambridge, MA: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Morrison, K., & Embretson, S. E. (2014). Using cognitive complexity to measure psychometric properties of mathematics assessment items. Multivariate Behavior Research, 49, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). 2017. Mathematics framework for the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Rudner, L. M. (2005). Expected classification accuracy. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–4.Google Scholar
  15. von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (Research Report RR-05-16). Princeton, NJ: ETS.Google Scholar
  16. von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations