Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica
Comparison and Selection of Five Noncompensatory Cognitive Diagnosis Models Based on Attribute Hierarchy Structure
TU Dongbo;CAI Yan;DAI Haiqi
(Psychology College of Jiangxi Normal University, Lab of psychology and cognition science of JiangXi, Nanchang 330022, China)
Download: PDF(361 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  Attribute hierarchy structure (AHS), which was considered as the basis of cognitive diagnosis, could largely affect the classification accuracy. However, in practical work, it was very difficult to determine whether the specified AHS was rational or not. Thus, it is necessary to explore how the AHS will affect the classification accuracy. This paper investigated the effect of different AHSs on the accuracy of diagnosis. And two AHSs were under investigation, one is the correctly identified AHS and the other is the incorrectly identified AHS. The commonly used Monte Carlo simulation method was employed to generate the data. And five cognitive diagnostic models, Rule Space Model (RSM), Attribute Hierarchy Model (AHM), General Distance Decision (GDD) Model, DINA_HC model and DINA model, were used to fit the same data. The results indicated that: (1) When the AHS was correctly identified, the attribute match ratios (AMRs) under RSM and AHM were both relatively low, while the AMRs under GDD, DINA_HC and DINA models were all relatively high. Furthermore, the AMRs under DINA_HC and DINA models were larger than that of GDD model. (2) When the AHS was incorrectly identified, the AMRs under RSM, AHM and GDD models were all relatively smaller compared to the case in which AHS was correctly identified, which indicated that the AHS significantly affects the accuracy of diagnosis of the RSM, AHM and GDD models. On the other hand, the influence of AHS on the accuracy of the diagnosis of DINA_HC model was moderate. But the accuracy of the diagnosis of DINA model will not be influenced by the AHS because the AHS information was not used in the DINA model.
Keywords cognitive diagnosis      ognitive diagnosis model      ttribute hierarchy      ttribute match ratio     
Corresponding Authors: TU Dongbo   
Issue Date: 28 February 2013
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
TU Dongbo
DAI Haiqi
Cite this article:   
TU Dongbo,CAI Yan,DAI Haiqi. Comparison and Selection of Five Noncompensatory Cognitive Diagnosis Models Based on Attribute Hierarchy Structure[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00243
URL:     OR
[1] KANG Chunhua; REN Ping; ZENG Pingfei. The influence factors of grade response cluster diagnostic method[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 891-902.
[2] LIU Yanlou; XIN Tao; LI Lingqing; TIAN Wei; LIU Xiaoxiao. An improved method for differential item functioning detection in cognitive diagnosis models: An application of Wald statistic based on observed information matrix[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 588-598.
[3] ZHAN Peida; BIAN Yufang; WANG Lijun. Factors affecting the classification accuracy of reparametrized diagnostic classification models for expert-defined polytomous attributes[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(3): 318-330.
[4] ZHAN Peida; CHEN Ping; BIAN Yufang. Using confirmatory compensatory multidimensional IRT models to do cognitive diagnosis[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(10): 1347-1356.
[5] CAI Yan; MIAO Ying; TU Dongbo. The polytomously scored cognitive diagnosis computerized adaptive testing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(10): 1338-1346.
[6] KANG Chunhua; REN Ping; ZENG Pingfei. Nonparametric Cognitive Diagnosis: A Cluster Diagnostic Method  Based on Grade Response Items[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(8): 1077-1088.
[7] TANG Xiaojuan; DING Shuliang; YU Zonghuo. Application of Rough Set Theory in Item Cognitive Attribute Identification[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(7): 950-962.
[8] ZHAN Peida; LI Xiaomin; WANG Wen-Chung; BIAN Yufang; WANG Lijun. The Multidimensional Testlet-Effect Cognitive Diagnostic Models[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(5): 689-701.
[9] CAI Yan; TU Dongbo. Extension of Cognitive Diagnosis Models Based on the Polytomous Attributes Framework and Their Q-matrices Designs[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(10): 1300-1308.
[10] WANG Zhuoran; GUO Lei; BIAN Yufang. Comparison of DIF Detecting Methods in Cognitive Diagnostic Test[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(12): 1923-1932.
[11] CAI Yan;TU Dongbo;DING Shuliang. A Simulation Study to Compare Five Cognitive Diagnostic Models[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(11): 1295-1304.
[12] TU Dong-Bo,CAI Yan,DAI Hai-Qi. A New Method of Q-matrix Validation Based on DINA Model[J]. , 2012, 44(4): 558-568.
[13] TU Dong-Bo;CAI Yan;DAI Hai-Qi;DING Shu-Liang. A New Multiple-Strategies Cognitive Diagnosis Model: the MSCD Method[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(11): 1547-1553.
[14] DING Shu-Liang;MAO Meng-Meng;WANG Wen-Yi;LUO Fen;CUI Ying. Evaluating the Consistency of Test Items Relative to the Cognitive Model for Educational Cognitive Diagnosis[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(11): 1535-1546.
[15] CHEN Ping,XIN Tao. Developing On-line Calibration Methods for Cognitive Diagnostic Computerized Adaptive Testing[J]. , 2011, 43(06): 710-724.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech