Improving reliability estimation in cognitive diagnosis modeling.

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-20 DOI:10.3758/s13428-022-01967-5
Rodrigo Schames Kreitchmann, Jimmy de la Torre, Miguel A Sorrel, Pablo Nájera, Francisco J Abad
{"title":"Improving reliability estimation in cognitive diagnosis modeling.","authors":"Rodrigo Schames Kreitchmann,&nbsp;Jimmy de la Torre,&nbsp;Miguel A Sorrel,&nbsp;Pablo Nájera,&nbsp;Francisco J Abad","doi":"10.3758/s13428-022-01967-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are used in educational, clinical, or personnel selection settings to classify respondents with respect to discrete attributes, identifying strengths and needs, and thus allowing to provide tailored training/treatment. As in any assessment, an accurate reliability estimation is crucial for valid score interpretations. In this sense, most CDM reliability indices are based on the posterior probabilities of the estimated attribute profiles. These posteriors are traditionally computed using point estimates for the model parameters as approximations to their populational values. If the uncertainty around these parameters is unaccounted for, the posteriors may be overly peaked, deriving into overestimated reliabilities. This article presents a multiple imputation (MI) procedure to integrate out the model parameters in the estimation of the posterior distributions, thus correcting the reliability estimation. A simulation study was conducted to compare the MI procedure with the traditional reliability estimation. Five factors were manipulated: the attribute structure, the CDM model (DINA and G-DINA), test length, sample size, and item quality. Additionally, an illustration using the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English data was analyzed. The effect of sample size was studied by sampling subsets of subjects from the complete data. In both studies, the traditional reliability estimation systematically provided overestimated reliabilities, whereas the MI procedure offered more accurate results. Accordingly, practitioners in small educational or clinical settings should be aware that the reliability estimation using model parameter point estimates may be positively biased. R codes for the MI procedure are made available.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10615987/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01967-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are used in educational, clinical, or personnel selection settings to classify respondents with respect to discrete attributes, identifying strengths and needs, and thus allowing to provide tailored training/treatment. As in any assessment, an accurate reliability estimation is crucial for valid score interpretations. In this sense, most CDM reliability indices are based on the posterior probabilities of the estimated attribute profiles. These posteriors are traditionally computed using point estimates for the model parameters as approximations to their populational values. If the uncertainty around these parameters is unaccounted for, the posteriors may be overly peaked, deriving into overestimated reliabilities. This article presents a multiple imputation (MI) procedure to integrate out the model parameters in the estimation of the posterior distributions, thus correcting the reliability estimation. A simulation study was conducted to compare the MI procedure with the traditional reliability estimation. Five factors were manipulated: the attribute structure, the CDM model (DINA and G-DINA), test length, sample size, and item quality. Additionally, an illustration using the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English data was analyzed. The effect of sample size was studied by sampling subsets of subjects from the complete data. In both studies, the traditional reliability estimation systematically provided overestimated reliabilities, whereas the MI procedure offered more accurate results. Accordingly, practitioners in small educational or clinical settings should be aware that the reliability estimation using model parameter point estimates may be positively biased. R codes for the MI procedure are made available.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

改进认知诊断建模中的可靠性估计。
认知诊断模型(CDM)用于教育、临床或人员选择环境,根据离散属性对受访者进行分类,识别优势和需求,从而提供量身定制的培训/治疗。与任何评估一样,准确的可靠性估计对于有效的分数解释至关重要。从这个意义上说,大多数CDM可靠性指数都是基于估计的属性简档的后验概率。传统上,这些后验是使用模型参数的点估计值作为其总体值的近似值来计算的。如果这些参数周围的不确定性没有得到解释,则后验可能会过度峰值,从而导致高估的可靠性。本文提出了一种多重插补(MI)程序,以整合后验分布估计中的模型参数,从而校正可靠性估计。进行了模拟研究,将MI程序与传统的可靠性估计进行了比较。五个因素被操纵:属性结构、CDM模型(DINA和G-DINA)、测试长度、样本量和项目质量。此外,还分析了一个使用英语熟练证书考试数据的例子。通过从完整数据中抽取受试者的子集来研究样本量的影响。在这两项研究中,传统的可靠性估计系统地提供了高估的可靠性,而MI程序提供了更准确的结果。因此,小型教育或临床环境中的从业者应该意识到,使用模型参数点估计的可靠性估计可能存在正偏差。MI程序的R代码可用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信