心理科学进展 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (6): 1010-1030.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01010
• 研究方法 • 上一篇
宋丽红1, 汪文义2, 丁树良2
收稿日期:
2023-08-18
出版日期:
2024-06-15
发布日期:
2024-04-07
通讯作者:
汪文义, E-mail: wenyiwang@jxnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
SONG Lihong1, WANG Wenyi2, DING Shuliang2
Received:
2023-08-18
Online:
2024-06-15
Published:
2024-04-07
摘要: Q矩阵是认知心理学与心理计量学结合的重要载体, Q矩阵在认知诊断中发挥着十分重要的作用。Q矩阵理论和应用研究近年来取得了重要进展。众多研究者从结构化到非结构化、属性二值到多值、简单到复杂模型、独立到一般结构、0-1到多级评分方面不断深入和拓展Q矩阵理论。Q矩阵理论也广泛应用于测验构念效度评价、计算机化自适应测验选题策略设计、Q矩阵学习和标定、认知诊断测验组卷等。与模型无关的Q矩阵理论和适合特定认知诊断模型下Q矩阵理论, 以及最新Q矩阵理论的应用都值得深入研究。
中图分类号:
宋丽红, 汪文义, 丁树良. (2024). 认知诊断评估中Q矩阵理论及应用. 心理科学进展 , 32(6), 1010-1030.
SONG Lihong, WANG Wenyi, DING Shuliang. (2024). Q-matrix theory and its applications in cognitive diagnostic assessment. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(6), 1010-1030.
[1] 蔡艳, 涂冬波. (2015). 属性多级化的认知诊断模型拓展及其Q矩阵设计. [2] 昌维, 詹沛达, 王立君. (2018). 认知诊断中多分属性与二分属性的对比研究. [3] 丁树良, 罗芬, 汪文义. (2012). Q矩阵理论的扩展. [4] 丁树良, 罗芬, 汪文义. (2014). 多级评分认知诊断测验蓝图的设计——独立型和收敛型结构. [5] 丁树良, 罗芬, 汪文义, 李佳, 熊建华. (2022). 非结构化完备Q阵的构造与判定. [6] 丁树良, 罗芬, 汪文义, 熊建华. (2015). 0-1和多值可达矩阵的性质及应用. [7] 丁树良, 罗芬, 汪文义, 熊建华. (2019). 0-1评分认知诊断测验设计. [8] 丁树良, 毛萌萌, 汪文义, 罗芬, Cui, Y. (2012). 教育认知诊断测验与认知模型一致性的评估. [9] 丁树良, 汪文义, 罗芬. (2012). 认知诊断中Q矩阵和Q矩阵理论. [10] 丁树良, 汪文义, 罗芬. (2014). 多级评分认知诊断测验蓝图的设计——根树型结构. [11] 丁树良, 汪文义, 罗芬, 熊建华. (2015). 多值Q矩阵理论. [12] 丁树良, 汪文义, 罗芬, 熊建华. (2016). 可达阵功能的不可替代性. [13] 丁树良, 汪文义, 罗芬, 熊建华. (2017). Q矩阵理论探微. [14] 丁树良, 汪文义, 罗芬, 熊建华. (2018). Q矩阵标定的一种简便方法. [15] 丁树良, 汪文义, 杨淑群. (2011). 认知诊断测验蓝图的设计. [16] 丁树良, 杨淑群, 汪文义. (2010). 可达矩阵在认知诊断测验编制中的重要作用. [17] 丁树良, 祝玉芳, 林海菁, 蔡艳. (2009). Tatsuoka Q矩阵理论的修正. [18] 高椿雷, 罗照盛, 郑蝉金, 喻晓锋, 彭亚风, 郭小军. (2017). CD-CAT初始阶段项目选取方法. [19] 康春花, 杨亚坤, 曾平飞. (2017). 海明距离判别法分类准确率的影响因素. [20] 康春花, 朱仕浩, 宫皓明, 曾平飞. (2023). 一种可融入额外信息的机器学习诊断法. [21] 李佳, 毛秀珍, 张雪琴. (2021). 认知诊断Q矩阵估计(修正)方法. [22] 李元白, 曾平飞, 杨亚坤, 康春花. (2018). 一种非参数的多策略方法:多策略的海明距离判别法. [23] 罗芬, 王晓庆, 丁树良, 熊建华. (2018). 自适应分组认知诊断测验设计及其选题策略. [24] 唐小娟, 丁树良, 毛萌萌, 俞宗火. (2013). 基于属性层级结构的认知诊断测验的组卷. [25] 唐小娟, 丁树良, 俞宗火. (2022). 题目属性向量平衡策略的认知诊断测验设计. [26] 田伟, 辛涛. (2012). 基于等级反应模型的规则空间方法. [27] 涂冬波, 蔡艳, 戴海琦. (2013). 认知诊断CAT选题策略及初始题选取方法. [28] 王立君, 唐芳, 詹沛达. (2020). 基于认知诊断测评的个性化补救教学效果分析: 以“一元一次方程”为例. [29] 汪文义, 丁树良, 宋丽红. (2015). 认知诊断中基于条件期望的距离判别方法. [30] 汪文义, 宋丽红, 丁树良. (2015). 基于探索性因素分析的Q矩阵标定方法. [31] 汪文义, 宋丽红, 丁树良. (2018). 基于可达阵的一种Q矩阵标定方法. [32] 王晓庆, 丁树良, 罗芬. (2019). 认知诊断中的Q矩阵及其作用. [33] 詹沛达, 边玉芳, 王立君. (2016). 重参数化的多分属性诊断分类模型及其判准率影响因素. [34] 詹沛达, 丁树良, 王立君. (2017). 多分属性层级结构下引入逻辑约束的理想掌握模式. [35] 祝玉芳, 丁树良. (2009). 基于等级反应模型的属性层级方法. [36] Bao, Y. (2019). [37] Briggs D., Alonzo A., Schwab C., & Wilson M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items.Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33-63. [38] Briggs, D. C., & Alonzo, A. C. (2012). The psychometric modeling of ordered multiple-choice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression. In A.C. Alonzo, & A.W.Gotwals (Eds.), [39] Cai Y., Tu D., & Ding S. (2018). Theorems and methods of a complete Q matrix with attribute hierarchies under restricted Q-matrix design. [40] Chang Y. P., Chiu C. Y., & Tsai R. C. (2019). Nonparametric CAT for CD in educational settings with small samples.Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(7), 543-561. [41] Chen, J., & de la Torre, J. (2013). A general cognitive diagnosis model for expert-defined polytomous attributes.Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 419-437. [42] Chen, J., & de la Torre, J. (2018). Introducing the general polytomous diagnosis modeling framework. [43] Chen Y., Liu J., Xu G., & Ying Z. (2015). Statistical analysis of Q-matrix based diagnostic classification models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(510), 850-866. [44] Chen, Y., & Wang, S. (2023). Bayesian estimation of attribute hierarchy for cognitive diagnosis models. [45] Chiu, C.-Y., & Chang, Y. (2021). Advances in CD-CAT: The general nonparametric item selection method.Psychometrika, 86(4), 1039-1057. [46] Chiu, C.-Y, & Douglas, J. (2013). A nonparametric approach to cognitive diagnosis by proximity to ideal response patterns.Journal of Classification, 30, 225-250. [47] Chiu C.-Y., Douglas J. A., & Li X. D. (2008). [48] Chiu C.-Y., Douglas J. A., & Li X. (2009). Cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: Theory and applications.Psychometrika, 74(4), 633-665. [49] Chiu, C.-Y., & Köhn, H.-F. (2015a). A general proof of consistency of heuristic classification for cognitive diagnosis models.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68(3), 387-409. [50] Chiu, C.-Y., & Köhn, H.-F. (2015b). Consistency of cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: The DINO model and the DINA model revisited.Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(6), 465-479. [51] Culpepper, S. A. (2023). A note on weaker conditions for identifying restricted latent class models for binary responses.Psychometrika, 88(1), 158-174. [52] Decarlo, L. T. (2011). On the analysis of fraction subtraction data: The DINA model, classification, latent class sizes, and the Q-matrix.Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(1), 8-26. [53] Dibello L. V., Stout W. F., & Roussos L. A. (1995). Unified cognitive psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In P. D. [54] de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework.Psychometrika, 76(2), 179-199. [55] de la Torre J., Qiu X. L., & Santos K.C. (2022). An empirical Q-matrix validation method for the polytomous G-DINA model.Psychometrika, 87(2), 693-724. [56] Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (2011). [57] Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2019a). Learning attribute patterns in high-dimensional structured latent attribute models.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(115), 1-58. [58] Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2019b). The sufficient and necessary condition for the identifiability and estimability of the DINA model. Psychometrika, 84(2), 468-483. [59] Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2020). Partial identifiability of restricted latent class models.The Annals of Statistics, 48(4), 2082-2107. [60] Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2021a). Identifiability of hierarchical latent attribute models. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.07869. [61] Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2021b). Sufficient and necessary conditions for the identifiability of the Q-matrix. Statistica Sinica, 31(1), 449-472. [62] Gu, Y., & Xu, G. (2023). Identifiability of hierarchical latent attribute models.Statistica Sinica, 33, 1-31. [63] Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items.Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(4), 301-321. [64] He S., Culpepper S. A., Douglas J. (2023). A sparse latent class model for polytomous attributes in cognitive diagnostic assessments. In L.A. van der Ark, W.H.M. Emons, & R.R. Meijer (Eds.), [65] Heller, J. (2022). Complete Q-matrices in conjunctive models on general attribute structures.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 75(2), 522-549. [66] Heller J., Anselmi P., Stefanutti L., & Robusto E. (2017). A necessary and sufficient condition for unique skill assessment.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 79, 23-28. [67] Heller J., Stefanutti L., Anselmi P., & Robusto E. (2015). On the link between cognitive diagnostic models and knowledge space theory.Psychometrika, 80(4), 995-1019.Henson, R. A., Templin, J. L., & Willse, J. T.(2), 191-210. [68] Kaplan M., de la Torre J., & Barrada J. R. (2015). New item selection methods for cognitive diagnosis computerized adaptive testing.Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(3), 167-188. [69] Karelitz, T. M. (2004). [70] Köhn, H.-F., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2017). A procedure for assessing the completeness of the Q-matrices of cognitively diagnostic tests.Psychometrika, 82(1), 112-132. [71] Köhn, H.-F., Chiu, C. -Y. (2018). How to build a complete Q-matrix for a cognitively diagnostic test.Journal of Classification, 35, 273-299. [72] Köhn, H.-F., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2019). Attribute hierarchy models in cognitive diagnosis: Identifiability of the latent attribute space and conditions for completeness of the Q-matrix.Journal of Classification, 36, 541-565. [73] Köhn, H.-F., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2021). A unified theory of the completeness of Q-matrices for the DINA model. Journal of Classification, 38(3), 500-518. [74] Kuo B.-C., Pai H.-S., & de la Torre, J. (2016). Modified cognitive diagnostic index and modified attribute-level discrimination index for test construction.Applied Psychological Measurement, 40(5), 315-330. [75] Leighton J.,& Gierl, M. (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Theory and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [76] Leighton J. P., Gierl M. J., & Hunka S. M. (2004). The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: A variation on Tatsuoka’s rule-space approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41(3), 205-237. [77] Liu J., Xu G., & Ying Z. (2012). Data-driven learning of Q-matrix.Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(7), 548-564. [78] Liu J., Xu G., & Ying Z. (2013). Theory of self-learning Q-matrix.Bernoulli, 19(5A), 1790-1817. [79] Liu, R. (2018). Misspecification of attribute structure in diagnostic measurement.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(4), 605-634. [80] Liu R., Huggins-Manley A. C., & Bradshaw L. (2016). The impact of Q-matrix designs on diagnostic classification accuracy in the presence of attribute hierarchies.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(2), 220-240. [81] Liu R.,& Jiang, Z.(2018). Diagnostic classification models for ordinal item responses. Frontiers in Psychology, [82] Liu R., Liu H., Shi D., & Jiang Z. (2022). Diagnostic classification models for a mixture of ordered and non-ordered response options in rating scales.Applied Psychological Measurement, 46(7), 622-639. [83] Liu Y., Xu G., & Ying Z. (2011. Learning item-attribute relationship in Q-matrix based diagnostic classification models. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from 2011). Learning item-attribute relationship in Q-matrix based diagnostic classification models. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from http://arxiv.org/ pdf/1106.0721v1.pdf. [84] Ma, C., Ouyang, J. & Xu, G. (2023). Learning latent and hierarchical structures in cognitive diagnosis models.Psychometrika, 88(1), 175-207. [85] Ma, W. (2022). A higher-order cognitive diagnosis model with ordinal attributes for dichotomous response data.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 57(2-3), 408-421. [86] Ma, C., de la Torre, J. & Xu, G. (2023). Bridging parametric and nonparametric methods in cognitive diagnosis.Psychometrika, 88(1), 51-75. [87] Ma, W., & de la Torre, J. (2016). A sequential cognitive diagnosis model for polytomous responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69(3), 253-275. [88] Ma, W., & Guo, W. (2019). Cognitive diagnosis models for multiple strategies.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72(2), 370-392. [89] Ma, W., & Jiang, Z. (2021). Estimating cognitive diagnosis models in small samples: Bayes modal estimation and monotonic constraints.Applied Psychological Measurement, 45(2), 95-111. [90] Madison, M. J., & Bradshaw, L. P. (2015). The effects of q-matrix design on classification accuracy in the log-linear cognitive diagnosis model.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(3), 491-511. [91] Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models.Psychometrika, 64(2), 187-212. [92] Rupp A. A., Templin J., & Henson, R. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications New York, NY: Guilford Press Theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [93] Sen S.,& Cohen, A. S.(2021). Sample size requirements for applying diagnostic classification models. [94] Sun J., Xin T., Zhang S., & de la Torre, J. (2013). A polytomous extension of the generalized distance discriminating method.Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(7), 503-521. [95] Sun Y., Ye S., Inoue S., & Sun Y. (2014). Alternating recursive method for Q-matrix learning. In J. C. Stamper, Z.A. Pardos, M. Mavrikis, & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), [96] Sun Y., Ye S., Sun Y., & Kameda T. (2015). Improved algorithms for exact and approximate Boolean matrix decomposition. In [97] Tang X., Duan H., Ding S.,& Mao, M.(2021). A simplified method for predicting pattern match ratio. [98] Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule-space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory.Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345-354. [99] Tatsuoka, K. K. (1991). [100] Tatsuoka, K. K. (1995). Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis: A statistical pattern recognition and classification approach. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), [101] Tatsuoka, K. K. (2009). [102] Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models.Psychological Methods, 11(3), 287-305. [103] Tian W., Zhang J., Peng Q.,& Yang, X.(2020). Q-matrix designs of longitudinal diagnostic classification models with hierarchical attributes for formative assessment. [104] Toprak T. E.(2021). An international comparison using cognitive diagnostic assessment: Fourth graders’ diagnostic profile of reading skills on PIRLS 2016. [105] Tu D., Wang S., Cai Y., Douglas J., & Chang H.-H. (2019). Cognitive diagnostic models with attribute hierarchies: Model estimation with a restricted Q-matrix design. [106] von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(2), 287-307. [107] von Davier, M., & Lee, Y-S. (2019). [108] Wang, C., & Lu, J. (2021). Learning attribute hierarchies from data: Two exploratory approaches.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 46(1), 58-84. [109] Wang D., Ma W., Cai Y., & Tu D. (2023). A general nonparametric classification method for multiple strategies in cognitive diagnostic assessment. [110] Wang W., Zheng J., Song L., Tu Y.,& Gao, P.(2021). Test assembly for cognitive diagnosis using mixed-integer linear programming. [111] Xiong J., Luo Z., Luo G., & Yu X. (2022). Data-driven Q-matrix learning based on Boolean matrix factorization in cognitive diagnostic assessment.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 75(3), 638-667. [112] Xu, G. (2013). [113] Xu, G. (2017). Identifiability of restricted latent class models with binary responses.The Annals of Statistics, 45(2), 675-707. [114] Xu, G., & Shang, Z. (2018). Identifying latent structures in restricted latent class models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523), 1284-1295. [115] Xu G., Wang C., & Shang Z. (2016). On initial item selection in cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing.The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69(3), 291-315. [116] Xu, G., & Zhang, S. (2016). Identifiability of diagnostic classification models. Psychometrika, 81(3), 625-649. [117] Zhan P., Liu Y., Yu Z., & Pan Y. (2023). Tracking ordinal development of skills with a longitudinal DINA model with polytomous attributes.Applied Measurement in Education, 36(2), 99-114. [118] Zhan P., Wang W. C., & Li X. (2020). A partial mastery, higher-order latent structural model for polytomous attributes in cognitive diagnostic assessments.Journal of Classification, 37, 328-351. [119] Zheng, Y., & Chang, H. H. (2015). On-the-fly assembled multistage adaptive testing.Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(2), 104-118. |
[1] | 李佳, 毛秀珍, 张雪琴. 认知诊断Q矩阵估计(修正)方法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(12): 2272-2280. |
[2] | 唐倩, 毛秀珍, 何明霜, 何洁. 认知诊断计算机化自适应测验的选题策略[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(12): 2160-2168. |
[3] | 张雪琴, 毛秀珍, 李佳. 基于CAT的在线标定:设计与方法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(11): 1970-1978. |
[4] | 高一珠, 陈孚, 辛涛, 詹沛达, 姜宇. 心理测量学模型在学习进阶中的应用:理论、途径和突破[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(9): 1623-1630. |
[5] | 陈孚;辛涛;刘彦楼;刘拓;田伟. 认知诊断模型资料拟合检验方法和统计量[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016, 24(12): 1946-1960. |
[6] | 李瑜;丁树良;唐小娟. 多项选择题认知诊断潜能的最大化[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(5): 866-880. |
[7] | 郭磊;苑春永;边玉芳. 从新模型视角探讨认知诊断的发展趋势[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(12): 2256-2264. |
[8] | 陈平;张佳慧;辛涛. 在线标定技术在计算机化自适应测验中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(10): 1883-1892. |
[9] | 刘源;刘红云. 音乐能力测验:结构拓展与分析方式的转换[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(8): 1322-1328. |
[10] | 唐小娟;丁树良;俞宗火. 计算机化自适应测验在认知诊断中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(4): 616-626. |
[11] | 陈秋梅; 张敏强. 认知诊断模型发展及其应用方法述评[J]. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18(3): 522-529. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||