期刊文献+

认知诊断模型中被试参数估计方法的选择

The Choice of Examinee Parameter Estimation Methods inCognitive Diagnostic Models
下载PDF
导出
摘要 根据被试的反应数据获得精细化诊断信息,为研究者提供个性化的指导是CDM的主要目的之一。以往研究在DINA模型下比较了被试参数估计方法(MLE、MAP和EAP)的表现,但在实践中如何选择最有效的方法仍有待研究。本文从理论角度探讨了不同知识状态分布对被试参数估计方法的影响,并进行了模拟研究。结果发现:当属性之间相关时,EAP和MAP方法的分类结果相似并高于MLE。鉴于实践中属性一般呈中等或高相关,建议选择EAP/MAP作为被试参数估计方法。 Cognitive diagnostic models(CDMs),which are also referred to diagnostic classification models(Rupp et al.,2010),are multiple discrete latent-variable models.In the past few decades or even earlier,CDMs have become a popular method in many fields,such as psychological and educational measurement,psychiatric evaluation,and other disciplines.Arguably,to offer fine-grained differentiated diagnostic information based on the examinees'observed response data to further help teachers and clinicians taking individualized instructions or interventions is one of the ultimate purposes of CDMs.Three examinee parameter estimation methods have been proposed to classify examinees into a group of latent classes in CDMs,including the maximum likelihood estimation(MLE;Birnbaum,1968),maximum a posteriori(MAP;Samejima,1969)and expected a posteriori(EAP;Bock&Mislevy,1982).Huebner and Wang(2011)investigated the performance of MLE,MAP,and EAP for classifying examinees within the DINA model framework.They found that MLE/MAP had a higher correct classification rate on all K skills.In their study,however,the item parameters and structural parameters were assumed to be known.Although the previous study compared the performance of the MLE,MAP and EAP,the choice of the most suitable examinee parameter estimation methods in CDMs still tend to be a problem.In this study,we proposed that the main difference between MLE,MAP and EAP is that the last two methods consider the latent knowledge state distribution.Thus,a simulation study was conducted to investigate the impact of latent knowledge state distribution on the classification accuracy of MLE,MAP and EAP.Five factors were manipulated:the attribute tetrachoric correlation(0,.5 and.8),number of sample size(300,1,000 and 5,000),number of attributes(3 and 5),data-generated models(DINA,DINO,A-CDM and G-DINA)and the types of Q-matrices(correctly and incorrectly).Four evaluation criteria were pattern correct classification rate(PCCR),attribute correct classification rate(ACCR),the classification rate for each skill(Skillk)and the average of the classification rate for all skill(Total).The classification results for all four criteria were averaged over the 1000 replications.Results showed that,(1)When the attribute tetrachoric correlation was zero,MLE produced the highest correct classification rate with the criteria of PCCR;(2)When the attribute tetrachoric correlation was moderate or high,the EAP and MAP generally yielded higher classification rate than that of the MLE;(3)The correct classification rate increased as the attribute correlation and item quality increased;(4)The correct classification rate of the misspecification of Q-matrix were worse than those in true Q-matrix and items with more attributes had lower accuracy;(5)The DINA and DINO models yielded more accurate classification rate than the G-DINA and A-CDM models.Overall,choosing the most appropriate knowledge state estimation method is of theoretical and practical importance.The results of this study indicated that the classification accuracy of MLE,MAP and EAP were affected by the latent knowledge state distribution,we recommend using EAP/MAP as an estimation method in practice to ensure the accuracy of estimation.
作者 周蔓 刘彦楼 滕雅茹 Zhou Man;Liu Yanlou;Teng Yaru(School of Psychology,Qufu Normal University,Qufu,273165;China Academy of Big Data for Education,Qufu Normal University,Qufu,273165)
出处 《心理科学》 CSCD 北大核心 2024年第1期229-236,共8页 Journal of Psychological Science
基金 国家自然科学基金项目(31900794) 山东省自然科学基金项目(ZR2019BC084) 山东省教育科学规划课题(2020KZD009) 大学生创新创业训练计划(202110446231X)的资助。
关键词 认知诊断模型 知识状态 MLE MAP EAP cognitive diagnostic model knowledge state MLE MAP EAP
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献82

  • 1孟庆茂,刘红云.α系数在使用中存在的问题[J].心理学探新,2002,22(3):42-47. 被引量:17
  • 2丁树良,罗芬.求偏序关系Hasse图的算法[J].江西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2005,29(2):150-152. 被引量:12
  • 3Cheng,Y. Computerized adaptive testing:New developments and applications[D].University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,2008.
  • 4Cohen,J. A power primer[J].Psychological Bulletin,1992.155-159.
  • 5DeCarlo,L.T. On the analysis of fraction subtraction data:The DINA model,classification,latent class sizes,and the Q-matrix[J].Applied Psychological Measurement,2010,(01):8-24.
  • 6de la Torre,J. An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model:Development and applications[J].Journal of Educational Measurement,2008,(04):346-362.
  • 7de la Torre,J. DINA model and parameter estimation:A didactic[J].Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,2009.115-130.
  • 8de la Torre,J,Hong,Y,Deng,W.L. Factors affecting the item parameter estimation and classification accuracy of the DINA model[J].Journal of Educational Measurement,2010,(02):227-249.
  • 9de la Torre,J,Douglas,J.A. Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis[J].Psychometrika,2004,(03):333-353.
  • 10Hartz,S. A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities:Blending theory with practicality[D].University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,2002.

共引文献73

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部