Abstract
AbstractCognitive 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
Funder
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference59 articles.
1. Akbay, L., & de la Torre, J. (2020). Estimation approaches in cognitive diagnosis modeling when attributes are hierarchically structured. Psicothema, 32(1), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.182
2. American Educational Research Association[AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME] (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing (14th ed.). American Educational Research Association.
3. Buck, G., & Tatsuoka, K. (1998). Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing: Examining attributes of a free response listening test. Language Testing, 15(2), 119–157.
4. Chen, J., & de la Torre, J. (2013). A general cognitive diagnosis model for expert-defined polytomous attributes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621613479818
5. Chen, Y.-H., Senk, S. L., Thompson, D. R., & Voogt, K. (2019). Examining psychometric properties and level classification of the van Hiele Geometry Test Using CTT and CDM Frameworks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 56(4), 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12235
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献