Test Assembly for Cognitive Diagnosis Using Mixed-Integer Linear Programming.

Wenyi Wang, Juanjuan Zheng, Lihong Song, Yukun Tu, Peng Gao
Author Information
  1. Wenyi Wang: School of Computer and Information Engineering, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
  2. Juanjuan Zheng: School of Computer and Information Engineering, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
  3. Lihong Song: School of Education, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
  4. Yukun Tu: School of Computer and Information Engineering, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.
  5. Peng Gao: School of Computer and Information Engineering, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, China.

Abstract

One purpose of cognitive diagnostic model (CDM) is designed to make inferences about unobserved latent classes based on observed item responses. A heuristic for test construction based on the CDM information index (CDI) proposed by Henson and Douglas (2005) has a far-reaching impact, but there are still many shortcomings. He and other researchers had also proposed new methods to improve or overcome the inherent shortcomings of the CDI test assembly method. In this study, one test assembly method of maximizing the minimum inter-class distance is proposed by using mixed-integer linear programming, which aims to overcome the shortcomings that the CDI method is limited to summarize the discriminating power of each item into a single CDI index while neglecting the discriminating power for each pair of latent classes. The simulation results show that compared with the CDI test assembly and random test assembly, the new test assembly method performs well and has the highest accuracy rate in terms of pattern and attributes correct classification rates. Although the accuracy rate of the new method is not very high under item constraints, it is still higher than the CDI test assembly with the same constraints.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Psychol. 2019 Jan 11;9:2298 [PMID: 30687144]
  2. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 25;11:570365 [PMID: 33101139]
  3. Appl Psychol Meas. 2016 Jul;40(5):315-330 [PMID: 29881056]
  4. Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 08;9:1413 [PMID: 30135672]
  5. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 02;11:2246 [PMID: 32982894]
  6. Appl Psychol Meas. 2020 Jan;44(1):17-32 [PMID: 31853156]
  7. Front Psychol. 2020 May 15;11:944 [PMID: 32477226]
  8. Appl Psychol Meas. 2017 Nov;41(8):614-631 [PMID: 29882533]
  9. Psychol Methods. 2006 Sep;11(3):287-305 [PMID: 16953706]
  10. J Am Stat Assoc. 2015;110(510):850-866 [PMID: 26294801]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0testCDIassemblymethodcognitiveitemindexproposedshortcomingsnewratediagnosticmodelCDMlatentclassesbasedinformationstillovercomeinter-classdistancemixed-integerlinearprogrammingdiscriminatingpoweraccuracycorrectclassificationconstraintsOnepurposedesignedmakeinferencesunobservedobservedresponsesheuristicconstructionHensonDouglas2005far-reachingimpactmanyresearchersalsomethodsimproveinherentstudyonemaximizingminimumusingaimslimitedsummarizesingleneglectingpairsimulationresultsshowcomparedrandomperformswellhighesttermspatternattributesratesAlthoughhighhigherTestAssemblyCognitiveDiagnosisUsingMixed-IntegerLinearProgrammingclusteranalysisdiagnosis

Similar Articles

Cited By