Validating theoretical assumptions about reading with cognitive diagnosis models

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
A. George, A. Robitzsch
{"title":"Validating theoretical assumptions about reading with cognitive diagnosis models","authors":"A. George, A. Robitzsch","doi":"10.1080/15305058.2021.1931238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Modern large-scale studies such as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) do not only report reading competence of students on a global reading scale but also report reading on the level of reading subskills. However, the number of and the dependencies between the subskills are frequently discussed. In this study, different theoretical assumptions regarding the subskills describing the reading competence “acquiring and using information” in PIRLS are deduced from accompanying official materials. The different assumptions are then translated into empirical cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs). By evaluating and comparing the CDMs in terms of empirical fit criteria in each country participating in PIRLS 2016, the underlying theoretical assumptions are validated. Results show that in all but one country, a model proposing four reading subskills with no order between the subskills shows the best fit. This selected model could be simplified in order to facilitate practical derivations as, for example, the evaluation of skill classes and the analysis of learning paths.","PeriodicalId":46615,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15305058.2021.1931238","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2021.1931238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract Modern large-scale studies such as the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) do not only report reading competence of students on a global reading scale but also report reading on the level of reading subskills. However, the number of and the dependencies between the subskills are frequently discussed. In this study, different theoretical assumptions regarding the subskills describing the reading competence “acquiring and using information” in PIRLS are deduced from accompanying official materials. The different assumptions are then translated into empirical cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs). By evaluating and comparing the CDMs in terms of empirical fit criteria in each country participating in PIRLS 2016, the underlying theoretical assumptions are validated. Results show that in all but one country, a model proposing four reading subskills with no order between the subskills shows the best fit. This selected model could be simplified in order to facilitate practical derivations as, for example, the evaluation of skill classes and the analysis of learning paths.
用认知诊断模型验证阅读的理论假设
国际阅读素养研究进展(PIRLS)等现代大规模研究不仅在全球阅读尺度上报告学生的阅读能力,而且在阅读子技能水平上报告阅读。但是,经常讨论子技能的数量和子技能之间的依赖关系。本研究从相关官方资料中,对PIRLS中描述阅读能力“获取和使用信息”的子技能进行了不同的理论假设。然后将不同的假设转化为经验认知诊断模型(CDMs)。通过根据参与PIRLS 2016的每个国家的经验拟合标准评估和比较清洁发展机制,验证了基本的理论假设。结果表明,在除一个国家外的所有国家中,提出四种阅读子技能且子技能之间没有顺序的模型最适合。这个选定的模型可以简化,以便于实际的推导,例如,技能等级的评估和学习路径的分析。
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
International Journal of Testing
International Journal of Testing SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
13
×
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