The accuracy and consistency of mastery for each content domain using the Rasch and deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate diagnostic classification models: a simulation study and a real-world analysis using data from the Korean Medical Licensing Examination
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: Diagnostic classification models (DCMs) were developed to identify the mastery or non-mastery of the attributes required for solving test items, but their application has been limited to very low-level attributes, and the accuracy and consistency of high-level attributes using DCMs have rarely been reported compared with classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory models. This paper compared the accuracy of high-level attribute mastery between deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate (DINA) and Rasch models, along with sub-scores based on CTT. Methods: First, a simulation study explored the effects of attribute length (number of items per attribute) and the correlations among attributes with respect to the accuracy of mastery. Second, a real-data study examined model and item fit and investigated the consistency of mastery for each attribute among the 3 models using the 2017 Korean Medical Licensing Examination with 360 items. Results: Accuracy of mastery increased with a higher number of items measuring each attribute across all conditions. The DINA model was more accurate than the CTT and Rasch models for attributes with high correlations (>0.5) and few items. In the real-data analysis, the DINA and Rasch models generally showed better item fits and appropriate model fit. The consistency of mastery between the Rasch and DINA models ranged from 0.541 to 0.633 and the correlations of person attribute scores between the Rasch and DINA models ranged from 0.579 to 0.786. Conclusion: Although all 3 models provide a mastery decision for each examinee, the individual mastery profile using the DINA model provides more accurate decisions for attributes with high correlations than the CTT and Rasch models. The DINA model can also be directly applied to tests with complex structures, unlike the CTT and Rasch models, and it provides different diagnostic information from the CTT and Rasch models.
Abstract
Purpose: Diagnostic classification models (DCMs) were developed to identify the mastery or non-mastery of the attributes required for solving test items, but their application has been limited to very low-level attributes, and the accuracy and consistency of high-level attributes using DCMs have rarely been reported compared with classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory models. This paper compared the accuracy of high-level attribute mastery between deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate (DINA) and Rasch models, along with sub-scores based on CTT. Methods: First, a simulation study explored the effects of attribute length (number of items per attribute) and the correlations among attributes with respect to the accuracy of mastery. Second, a real-data study examined model and item fit and investigated the consistency of mastery for each attribute among the 3 models using the 2017 Korean Medical Licensing Examination with 360 items. Results: Accuracy of mastery increased with a higher number of items measuring each attribute across all conditions. The DINA model was more accurate than the CTT and Rasch models for attributes with high correlations (>0.5) and few items. In the real-data analysis, the DINA and Rasch models generally showed better item fits and appropriate model fit. The consistency of mastery between the Rasch and DINA models ranged from 0.541 to 0.633 and the correlations of person attribute scores between the Rasch and DINA models ranged from 0.579 to 0.786. Conclusion: Although all 3 models provide a mastery decision for each examinee, the individual mastery profile using the DINA model provides more accurate decisions for attributes with high correlations than the CTT and Rasch models. The DINA model can also be directly applied to tests with complex structures, unlike the CTT and Rasch models, and it provides different diagnostic information from the CTT and Rasch models.
참고문헌 (16)
- Rasch G., "Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests" (1993), MESA Press
- De Ayala RJ, "The theory and practice of item response theory" (2009), Guilford Press
- Junker BW, "Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory", Appl Psychol Meas, 25, pp.258~272 (2001)[DOI]
- Rupp AA, "Diagnostic measurement: theory, methods, and applications" (2010), Guilford Press
- De La Torre J, "DINA model and parameter estimation : a didactic", J Educ Behav Stat, 34, pp.115~130 (2009)[DOI]
- De La Torre J, "Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis : an analysis of fraction subtraction data", Psychometrika, 73, pp.595~ (2008)[DOI]
- De La Torre J, "Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis", Psychometrika, 69, pp.333~353 (2004)[DOI]
- Seo DG, "Post-hoc simulation study of computerized adaptive testing for the Korean Medical Licensing Examination", J Educ Eval Health Prof, 15, pp.14~ (2018)[DOI]
- Haberman SJ, "Reporting of subscores using multidimensional item response theory", Psychometrika, 75, pp.209~227 (2010)[DOI]
- Reckase MD, "The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability", Appl Psychol Meas, 9, pp.401~412 (1985)[DOI]
- "R: a language and environment for statistical computing" (2018)[URL]
- "Sirt: supplementary item response theory models: R package version 3.9-4" (2020)[URL]
- Waugh RF, "An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis (true-score theory) and Rasch measurement: what is the difference?: which method is better?", J Appl Meas, 6, pp.80~99 (2005)
- Kline RB, "Principles and practice of structural equation modeling" (2011), Guilford Press
- Zhang J, "The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure", Psychometrika, 64, pp.213~249 (1999)[DOI]
- Seo DG, "Usefulness of the DETECT program for assessing the internal structure of dimensionality in simulated data and results of the Korean nursing licensing examination", J Educ Eval Health Prof, 14, pp.32~ (2017)[DOI]