This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0146621607300286v1 32/7/559    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Templin, J. L. Articles by Roussos, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Robustness of Hierarchical Modeling of Skill Association in Cognitive Diagnosis Models

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jtemplin{at}uga.edu.

	Abstract

Several types of parameterizations of attribute correlations in cognitive diagnosis models use the reduced reparameterized unified model. The general approach presumes an unconstrained correlation matrix with (K(K - 1))/2 parameters, whereas the higher order approach postulates K parameters, imposing a unidimensional structure on the correlation matrix between the latent skills. This article investigates the differences in performance between the correlational structure parameterizations (a general structure, a higher order single-factor structure, and a baseline uniform distributional approach constraining the attributes to be independent) across a wide variety of simulated multidimensional attribute spaces. Results suggest that the correlational approaches perform equally well with respect to classification and item parameter estimation accuracy, regardless of the violations of the assumptions of the higher order model. Findings suggest the general robustness of the higher order model and the associated estimation procedure. The three approaches are also used to analyze a real-world test; results suggest that such tests can be analyzed effectively by the higher order algorithm.

First published on March 14, 2008, doi:10.1177/0146621607300286

Applied Psychological Measurement 2008;32:559.

A more recent version of this article appeared on October 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?