Literature DB >> 36127563

Improving reliability estimation in cognitive diagnosis modeling.

Rodrigo Schames Kreitchmann1,2, Jimmy de la Torre3, Miguel A Sorrel4, Pablo Nájera4, Francisco J Abad4.   

Abstract

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are used in educational, clinical, or personnel selection settings to classify respondents with respect to discrete attributes, identifying strengths and needs, and thus allowing to provide tailored training/treatment. As in any assessment, an accurate reliability estimation is crucial for valid score interpretations. In this sense, most CDM reliability indices are based on the posterior probabilities of the estimated attribute profiles. These posteriors are traditionally computed using point estimates for the model parameters as approximations to their populational values. If the uncertainty around these parameters is unaccounted for, the posteriors may be overly peaked, deriving into overestimated reliabilities. This article presents a multiple imputation (MI) procedure to integrate out the model parameters in the estimation of the posterior distributions, thus correcting the reliability estimation. A simulation study was conducted to compare the MI procedure with the traditional reliability estimation. Five factors were manipulated: the attribute structure, the CDM model (DINA and G-DINA), test length, sample size, and item quality. Additionally, an illustration using the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English data was analyzed. The effect of sample size was studied by sampling subsets of subjects from the complete data. In both studies, the traditional reliability estimation systematically provided overestimated reliabilities, whereas the MI procedure offered more accurate results. Accordingly, practitioners in small educational or clinical settings should be aware that the reliability estimation using model parameter point estimates may be positively biased. R codes for the MI procedure are made available.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Classification accuracy; Cognitive diagnosis; Diagnostic classification; Multiple imputation; Reliability

Year:  2022        PMID: 36127563     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01967-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  11 in total

1.  A General Method of Empirical Q-matrix Validation.

Authors:  Jimmy de la Torre; Chia-Yi Chiu
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.500

2.  Application of cognitive diagnosis models to competency-based situational judgment tests.

Authors:  Pablo Eduardo García; Julio Olea; Jimmy De la Torre
Journal:  Psicothema       Date:  2014

3.  Hierarchical diagnostic classification models: a family of models for estimating and testing attribute hierarchies.

Authors:  Jonathan Templin; Laine Bradshaw
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 2.500

4.  A sequential cognitive diagnosis model for polytomous responses.

Authors:  Wenchao Ma; Jimmy de la Torre
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  Balancing fit and parsimony to improve Q-matrix validation.

Authors:  Pablo Nájera; Miguel A Sorrel; Jimmy de la Torre; Francisco José Abad
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 3.380

6.  Estimation approaches in cognitive diagnosis modeling when attributes are hierarchically structured.

Authors:  Lokman Akbay; Jimmy de la Torre
Journal:  Psicothema       Date:  2020-02

7.  Cognitive diagnosis models for multiple strategies.

Authors:  Wenchao Ma; Wenjing Guo
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.380

8.  Estimating Cognitive Diagnosis Models in Small Samples: Bayes Modal Estimation and Monotonic Constraints.

Authors:  Wenchao Ma; Zhehan Jiang
Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas       Date:  2020-12-24

9.  A diagnostic classification version of Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire using diagnostic classification models.

Authors:  Chongqin Xi; Yan Cai; Siwei Peng; Jie Lian; Dongbo Tu
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 4.035

10.  Determining the Number of Attributes in Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling.

Authors:  Pablo Nájera; Francisco José Abad; Miguel A Sorrel
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-02-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.