Heuristic cognitive diagnosis when the Q-matrix is unknown

被引:8
|
作者
Koehn, Hans-Friedrich [1 ]
Chiu, Chia-Yi [2 ]
Brusco, Michael J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Psychol, Champaign, IL 61820 USA
[2] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Educ Psychol, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 USA
[3] Florida State Univ, Coll Business, Tallahassee, FL 32306 USA
关键词
cognitive diagnosis; asymptotic theory of cognitive diagnosis; consistency; clustering; classification; heuristic; DINA MODEL; CLASSIFICATION;
D O I
10.1111/bmsp.12044
中图分类号
O1 [数学];
学科分类号
0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Cognitive diagnosis models of educational test performance rely on a binary Q-matrix that specifies the associations between individual test items and the cognitive attributes (skills) required to answer those items correctly. Current methods for fitting cognitive diagnosis models to educational test data and assigning examinees to proficiency classes are based on parametric estimation methods such as expectation maximization (EM) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) that frequently encounter difficulties in practical applications. In response to these difficulties, non-parametric classification techniques (cluster analysis) have been proposed as heuristic alternatives to parametric procedures. These non-parametric classification techniques first aggregate each examinee's test item scores into a profile of attribute sum scores, which then serve as the basis for clustering examinees into proficiency classes. Like the parametric procedures, the non-parametric classification techniques require that the Q-matrix underlying a given test be known. Unfortunately, in practice, the Q-matrix for most tests is not known and must be estimated to specify the associations between items and attributes, risking a misspecified Q-matrix that may then result in the incorrect classification of examinees. This paper demonstrates that clustering examinees into proficiency classes based on their item scores rather than on their attribute sum-score profiles does not require knowledge of the Q-matrix, and results in a more accurate classification of examinees.
引用
收藏
页码:268 / 291
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Using machine learning to improve Q-matrix validation
    Qin, Haijiang
    Guo, Lei
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2024, 56 (03) : 1916 - 1935
  • [22] Exploration of polytomous-attribute Q-matrix validation in cognitive diagnostic assessment
    Qin, Chunying
    Dong, Shenghong
    Yu, Xiaofeng
    KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS, 2024, 292
  • [23] A general proof of consistency of heuristic classification for cognitive diagnosis models
    Chiu, Chia-Yi
    Koehn, Hans-Friedrich
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 68 (03) : 387 - 409
  • [24] Cognitive diagnostic assessment: A Q-matrix constraint-based neural network method
    Tao, Jinhong
    Zhao, Wei
    Zhang, Yuliu
    Guo, Qian
    Min, Baocui
    Xu, Xiaoqing
    Liu, Fengjuan
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2024, 56 (07) : 6981 - 7004
  • [25] Data-Driven Learning of Q-Matrix
    Liu, Jingchen
    Xu, Gongjun
    Ying, Zhiliang
    APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2012, 36 (07) : 548 - 564
  • [26] A General Method of Empirical Q-matrix Validation
    de la Torre, Jimmy
    Chiu, Chia-Yi
    PSYCHOMETRIKA, 2016, 81 (02) : 253 - 273
  • [27] Using Regularized Methods to Validate Q-Matrix in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment
    Fu, Daoxuan
    Qin, Chunying
    Luo, Zhaosheng
    Li, Yujun
    Yu, Xiaofeng
    Ye, Ziyu
    JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICS, 2025, 50 (01) : 149 - 179
  • [28] Recognizing Uncertainty in the Q-Matrix via a Bayesian Extension of the DINA Model
    DeCarlo, Lawrence T.
    APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2012, 36 (06) : 447 - 468
  • [29] An empirical Q-matrix validation method using complete information matrix in cognitive diagnostic models
    Liu Yanlou
    Wu Qiongqiong
    ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA SINICA, 2023, 55 (01) : 142 - 158
  • [30] A Two-Step Q-Matrix Estimation Method
    Kohn, Hans-Friedrich
    Chiu, Chia-Yi
    Oluwalana, Olasumbo
    Kim, Hyunjoo
    Wang, Jiaxi
    APPLIED PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2025, 49 (1-2) : 3 - 28