IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v48y2023i5p573-602.html

An Explicit Form With Continuous Attribute Profile of the Partial Mastery DINA Model

Author

Listed:
  • Tian Shu
  • Guanzhong Luo
  • Zhaosheng Luo
  • Xiaofeng Yu

    (Jiangxi Normal University)

  • Xiaojun Guo

    (Gannan Normal University)

  • Yujun Li

    (Jiangxi Normal University)

Abstract

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are the statistical framework for cognitive diagnostic assessment in education and psychology. They generally assume that subjects’ latent attributes are dichotomous—mastery or nonmastery, which seems quite deterministic. As an alternative to dichotomous attribute mastery, attention is drawn to the use of a continuous attribute mastery format in recent literature. To obtain subjects’ finer-grained attribute mastery for more precise diagnosis and guidance, an equivalent but more explicit form of the partial-mastery-deterministic inputs, noisy “and†gate (DINA) model (termed continuous attribute profile [CAP]-DINA form) is proposed in this article. Its parameters estimation algorithm based on this form using Bayesian techniques with Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm is also presented. Two simulation studies are conducted then to explore its parameter recovery and model misspecification, and the results demonstrate that the CAP-DINA form performs robustly with satisfactory efficiency in these two aspects. A real data study of the English test also indicates it has a better model fit than DINA.

Suggested Citation

  • Tian Shu & Guanzhong Luo & Zhaosheng Luo & Xiaofeng Yu & Xiaojun Guo & Yujun Li, 2023. "An Explicit Form With Continuous Attribute Profile of the Partial Mastery DINA Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 48(5), pages 573-602, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:48:y:2023:i:5:p:573-602
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986231159436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986231159436
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986231159436?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Whitely, 1980. "Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 479-494, December.
    2. San Martin, Ernesto & Jara, Alejandro & Rolin, Jean-Marie & Mouchart, Michel, 2011. "On the Bayesian nonparametric generalization of IRT-type models," LIDAM Reprints ISBA 2011012, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    3. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika Van Der Linde, 2002. "Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(4), pages 583-639, October.
    4. Ernesto San Martín & Jean-Marie Rolin & Luis Castro, 2013. "Identification of the 1PL Model with Guessing Parameter: Parametric and Semi-parametric Results," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 341-379, April.
    5. Jimmy de la Torre, 2011. "The Generalized DINA Model Framework," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 179-199, April.
    6. Hans-Friedrich Köhn & Chia-Yi Chiu, 2016. "A Proof of the Duality of the DINA Model and the DINO Model," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 33(2), pages 171-184, July.
    7. Peida Zhan & Hong Jiao & Kaiwen Man & Lijun Wang, 2019. "Using JAGS for Bayesian Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling: A Tutorial," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(4), pages 473-503, August.
    8. Susan Embretson & Xiangdong Yang, 2013. "A Multicomponent Latent Trait Model for Diagnosis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 14-36, January.
    9. E. Maris, 1999. "Estimating multiple classification latent class models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 187-212, June.
    10. Jimmy Torre & Jeffrey Douglas, 2004. "Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 333-353, September.
    11. Elena Erosheva, 2005. "Comparing Latent Structures of the Grade of Membership, Rasch, and Latent Class Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 619-628, December.
    12. Jimmy Torre, 2011. "Erratum to: The Generalized DINA Model Framework," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 510-510, July.
    13. Ying Cheng, 2009. "When Cognitive Diagnosis Meets Computerized Adaptive Testing: CD-CAT," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 619-632, December.
    14. Ernesto San Martín & Alejandro Jara & Jean-Marie Rolin & Michel Mouchart, 2011. "On the Bayesian Nonparametric Generalization of IRT-Type Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 385-409, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peida Zhan & Hong Jiao & Kaiwen Man & Lijun Wang, 2019. "Using JAGS for Bayesian Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling: A Tutorial," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(4), pages 473-503, August.
    2. Kazuhiro Yamaguchi & Kensuke Okada, 2020. "Variational Bayes Inference for the DINA Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(5), pages 569-597, October.
    3. Peida Zhan & Wen-Chung Wang & Xiaomin Li, 2020. "A Partial Mastery, Higher-Order Latent Structural Model for Polytomous Attributes in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessments," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 37(2), pages 328-351, July.
    4. Kazuhiro Yamaguchi, 2025. "Bayesian Diagnostic Classification Models for a Partially Known Q-Matrix," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 50(2), pages 331-382, April.
    5. Kazuhiro Yamaguchi & Jonathan Templin, 2022. "Direct Estimation of Diagnostic Classification Model Attribute Mastery Profiles via a Collapsed Gibbs Sampling Algorithm," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1390-1421, December.
    6. Xin Xu & Guanhua Fang & Jinxin Guo & Zhiliang Ying & Susu Zhang, 2024. "Diagnostic Classification Models for Testlets: Methods and Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 851-876, September.
    7. Yuqi Gu, 2024. "Going Deep in Diagnostic Modeling: Deep Cognitive Diagnostic Models (DeepCDMs)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 118-150, March.
    8. Chia-Yi Chiu & Hans-Friedrich Köhn, 2019. "Consistency Theory for the General Nonparametric Classification Method," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 830-845, September.
    9. Peida Zhan* & Kaiwen Man* & Stefanie A. Wind & Jonathan Malone, 2022. "Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling Incorporating Response Times and Fixation Counts: Providing Comprehensive Feedback and Accurate Diagnosis," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 47(6), pages 736-776, December.
    10. Hans Friedrich Köhn & Chia-Yi Chiu, 2021. "A Unified Theory of the Completeness of Q-Matrices for the DINA Model," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 38(3), pages 500-518, October.
    11. Xuliang Gao & Wenchao Ma & Daxun Wang & Yan Cai & Dongbo Tu, 2021. "A Class of Cognitive Diagnosis Models for Polytomous Data," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(3), pages 297-322, June.
    12. Jimmy de la Torre & Xue-Lan Qiu & Kevin Carl Santos, 2022. "An Empirical Q-Matrix Validation Method for the Polytomous G-DINA Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 693-724, June.
    13. Wenyi Wang & Lihong Song & Teng Wang & Peng Gao & Jian Xiong, 2020. "A Note on the Relationship of the Shannon Entropy Procedure and the Jensen–Shannon Divergence in Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440198, January.
    14. Ragip Terzi & Sedat Sen, 2019. "A Nondiagnostic Assessment for Diagnostic Purposes: Q-Matrix Validation and Item-Based Model Fit Evaluation for the TIMSS 2011 Assessment," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    15. Jürgen Heller & Luca Stefanutti & Pasquale Anselmi & Egidio Robusto, 2015. "On the Link between Cognitive Diagnostic Models and Knowledge Space Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 995-1019, December.
    16. Mona Tabatabaee-Yazdi, 2020. "Hierarchical Diagnostic Classification Modeling of Reading Comprehension," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, June.
    17. Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2019. "Estimating the Cognitive Diagnosis $$\varvec{Q}$$ Q Matrix with Expert Knowledge: Application to the Fraction-Subtraction Dataset," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(2), pages 333-357, June.
    18. Lidan Liang & Jing Lu & Jiwei Zhang & Guanghui Cheng, 2024. "Modeling Skipped Items in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessments," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, October.
    19. Peida Zhan & Xin Qiao, 2022. "DIAGNOSTIC Classification Analysis of Problem-Solving Competence using Process Data: An Item Expansion Method," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1529-1547, December.
    20. Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2023. "A Note on Weaker Conditions for Identifying Restricted Latent Class Models for Binary Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 158-174, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:48:y:2023:i:5:p:573-602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.