Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

An Evaluation of 4PL IRT and DINA Models for Estimating Pseudo-Guessing and Slipping Parameters

Sayfa
131–146
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Accordingly, both 4PL IRT andDINA models can be considered for analyzing the datasets contaminated with guessing and slipping effects.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In an achievement test, the examinees with the required knowledge and skill on a test item are expected to answerthe item correctly while the examinees with a lack of necessary information on the item are expected to give anincorrect answer.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Four-parameter logistic item response theory(4PL IRT) model and the deterministic inputs, noisy, and gate (DINA) model can be used to mitigate thesenegative impacts on the parameter estimations.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Accordingly, both 4PL IRT andDINA models can be considered for analyzing the datasets contaminated with guessing and slipping effects.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

In an achievement test, the examinees with the required knowledge and skill on a test item are expected to answerthe item correctly while the examinees with a lack of necessary information on the item are expected to give anincorrect answer. However, an examinee can give a correct answer to the multiple-choice test items throughguessing or sometimes give an incorrect response to an easy item due to anxiety or carelessness. Either case maycause a bias estimation of examinee abilities and item parameters. Four-parameter logistic item response theory(4PL IRT) model and the deterministic inputs, noisy, and gate (DINA) model can be used to mitigate thesenegative impacts on the parameter estimations. The current simulation study aims to compare the estimatedpseudo-guessing and slipping parameters from the 4PL IRT model and the DINA model under several studyconditions. The DINA model was used to simulate the datasets in the study. The study results showed that thebias of the estimated slipping and guessing parameters from both 4PL IRT and DINA models were reasonablysmall in general although the estimated slipping and guessing parameters were more biased when datasets wereanalyzed through the 4PL IRT model rather than the DINA model (i.e., the average bias for both guessing andslipping parameters = .00 from DINA model, but .08 from 4PL IRT model). Accordingly, both 4PL IRT andDINA models can be considered for analyzing the datasets contaminated with guessing and slipping effects.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KALKAN, Ö. K., ÇUHADAR, İ. (2022). An Evaluation of 4PL IRT and DINA Models for Estimating Pseudo-Guessing and Slipping Parameters. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 131–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/497190

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (4)

  1. Barton, M. A., & Lord, F. M. (1981). An upper asymptote for the three-parameter logistic item-response model (Research Report 18-21).
  2. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. doi: 10.1002/j.2333- 8504.1981.tb01255.x Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i06 Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Cluster analysis for cognitive diagnosis: Theory and applications (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/80055
  3. Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 147-168. doi: 10.1177/1094428103251541 Culpepper, S. A. (2016). Revisiting the 4-parameter item response model: Bayesian estimation and application. Psychometrika, 81(4), 1142-1163. doi: 10.1007/s11336-015-9477-6 de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  4. DeCarlo, L. T. (2011). On the analysis of fraction subtraction data: The DINA model, classification, latent class sizes, and the Q-matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(1), 8-26. doi: 10.1177/0146621610377081 de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(4), 343-362. doi: 10.1111/j.1745- 3984.2008.00069.x de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational And Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 115-130. doi: 10.3102/1076998607309474 de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 179-199. doi: 10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7 de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrica, 69(3), 333-353. doi: 10.1007/BF02295640 de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2008). Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: An analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika, 73(4), 595-624. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9063-2 de la Torre, J., Hong, Y., & Deng, W. (2010). Factors affecting the item parameter estimation and classification accuracy of the DINA model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(2), 227-249. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2010.00110.x de la Torre, J., & Lee, Y. S. (2010). A note on the invariance of the dina model parameters. Journal of Educational