心理科学 2018, (3) 727-734 DOI:     ISSN: 0412-1961 CN: 21-1139/TG

本期目录 | 下期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索                                                            [打印本页]   [关闭]
统计、测量与方法
扩展功能
本文信息
Supporting info
PDF(0KB)
[HTML全文]
参考文献[PDF]
参考文献
服务与反馈
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
引用本文
Email Alert
文章反馈
浏览反馈信息
本文关键词相关文章
GDINA
饱和模型
Wald检验
简化模型
本文作者相关文章
高旭亮
汪大勋
蔡艳
涂冬波
PubMed
Article by Gao,X.L
Article by Wang,T.X
Article by Sa,y
Article by Chu,D.B
认知诊断模型的比较及其应用研究:饱和模型、简化模型还是混合方法?
高旭亮1,汪大勋2,蔡艳2,涂冬波2
1. 江西师范大学心理学院
2. 江西师范大学
摘要: GDINA是一个饱和认知诊断模型(Cognitive Diagnosis Models, CDM),Wald检验被用于在题目水平上检验GDINA是否可以被简化模型(如DINA, DINO, ACDM和RRUM)替代,并为测验的每一个题目选择一个最恰当的CDM(简称混合CDM)。选择合适的CDM是进行诊断评估的一个关键步骤,通过Monte Carlo 模拟实验,比较了不同的测验情境下,GDINA、简化CDM和混合CDM在测验整体拟合指标、模式判准率和项目参数估计的返真性等效果,研究发现混合模型的整体表现是最好的,其次是GDINA,最后是简化CDM。
关键词GDINA   饱和模型   Wald检验   简化模型  
Comparison of CDM and Its Selection: a Saturated model, a Simple Model or a Mixed Model?
Abstract: Recent advances in a category of analytic methods collectively referred to as cognitive diagnostic models (CDM) show great promise. A large number of CDM have been proposed, The deterministic inputs, noisy, ‘‘and’’gate (DINA) model, an example of a conjunctive model, assigns the highest probability of answering correctly to examinees that possess all of the required attributes. Disjunctive models, however, assume that lacking a particular attribute can be off-set by possessing another. For example, the deterministic inputs, noisy, ‘‘or’’ gate (DINO) model assigns the highest probability of answering correctly to examinees with at least one of the required attributes. Examples of other specific, interpretable CDM are the reduced reparametrized unified model (RRUM; Hartz,2002), the additive CDM(ACDM). Apart from these specific CDM, general or saturated CDM subsuming many widely used specific CDM have also been developed, including the generalized DINA (GDINA) model, the general diagnostic model (GDM), and the log-linear CDM (LCDM). Although general CDM provide better model-data fit, reduced CDM have more straightforward interpretations, are more stable, and can provide more accurate classifications when used correctly. Although a multitude of CDM are available, it is not clear how the most appropriate model for a specific test can be identified because the cognitive processes in answering items may be complicated. An important decision that researchers make is that of choosing either a CDM that allows for compensatory relationships among skills or one that allows for non-compensatory relationships among skills. With a compensatory model, a high level of competence on one skill can compensate for a low level of competence on another skill in performing a task. Specifically, a general model (i.e., GDINA model) can be tested statistically against the fits of some of the specific CDM it subsumes using the Wald test. The Wald test was originally proposed by de la Torre (2011) for comparing general and specific models at the item level (i.e., one item at a time) thereby creating the possibility of using multiple CDM within the same test which means each item has a appropriate CDM (Mixed CDM). In order to compare the Mixed model and other model performance in the paper and pencil test, Using a complex simulation study we investigated parameter recovery, classification accuracy, and performance of a item-fit statistics for correct and misspecified diagnostic classification models within a GDINA framework. The basic manipulated test design factors included the number of respondents, item quality generating model, fitted model and Q-matrix. The three sample sizes were N = 500, 1,000, and 2,000, item quality were high, medium and low, generating model and fitted model were GDINA, Mixed, DINA, DINO, ACDM and RRUM, Q-matrix included simple Q-matrix and complex Q-matrix. The study found that overall under all experimental conditions, the Mixed CDM had the best performance. Simply take into account classification accuracy rate, Mixed in low quality advantage is more obvious in the tests, when item quality is high, Mixed and GDINA performance is almost identical, but under all experimental conditions, Mixed was better than GDINA in information-based fit indexes AIC and item parameter recovery.
Keywords: GDINA   Saturated model   Wald test   Reduced CDM  
DOI:
基金项目:

通讯作者: 高旭亮
作者简介:
作者Email: 1029549603@qq.com

参考文献:
本刊中的类似文章

Copyright by 心理科学