Consistency and Ability of Students Using DINA and DINO Models



Abstract Views
549

Downloads
272

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Mar 28, 2023
Published Jul 6, 2023
10.24018/ejmath.2023.4.4.230

Abstract viewed = 549 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

There are two prevalent models for studying cognitive diagnosis Models  for appraisement and diagnostics, each of these two models is the definite Input Noisy Output “and” gate  and the Deterministic Input Noisy Output “or” gate  models. The usage of them is to display various views of the ways cognitive skills are related and the probability of how an  responds correctly. The aim of  study is to compare the mentioned models and girls and boys  with the modeling of cognitive diagnosis. The aims of this study  to identify differences in performance of Afghan boys’ and girls’ students in the basic mathematical attributes and cognitive skills of the eighth grade in TIMMS (2011). As well as rankings among the countries that participated in TIMMS. Two commonly used CDMs were employed to fit the response data, including these two models (DINA and DINO). With the assistance of CDMs, we could obtain not only the item parameters, but also the skill profile for each student. Results show that the examinees do best in number domain while do worst in data and chance.

Keywords: CDMs DINA DINO Q-Matrix TIMSS 2011

References

  1. Ghosh S, Roy MK, Biswas SC. Determination of the best fit probability distribution for monthly rainfall data in Bangladesh. American Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 2016; 6(4): 170-174.
     Google Scholar
  2. Wafa MN, Hussani SA, Pazhman J. Evaluation of Students' Mathematical Ability in Afghanistan's Schools Using Cognitive Diagnosis Models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2020; 16(6): 57-64.
     Google Scholar
  3. Wafa MN, Assessing school students’ mathematic ability using DINA and DINO models. International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology. 2019; 65(12): 153-65.
     Google Scholar
  4. Rupp AA, Gushta M, Mislevy RJ, Shaffer DW. Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment. 2010; 8(4): 1-12.
     Google Scholar
  5. Ravand H, Barati H, Widhiarso W. Exploring diagnostic capacity of a high stakes reading comprehension test: A pedagogical demonstration. Iranian Journal of Language Testing. 2013; 3(1):11-37.
     Google Scholar
  6. George AC, Robitzsch A, Kiefer T, Groß J, Ünlü A. The R package CDM for cognitive diagnosis models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2016; 74(1):1-24.
     Google Scholar
  7. Akaike H. Maximum likelihood identification of Gaussian autoregressive moving average models. Biometrika. 1973; 60(2): 255-65.
     Google Scholar
  8. Choi KM, Lee YS, Park YS. What CDM can tell about what students have learned: An analysis of TIMSS eighth grade mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2015; 11(6):1563-77.
     Google Scholar
  9. De Boeck P, Wilson M, editors. Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York: Springer; 2004.
     Google Scholar
  10. de la Torre J, Chiu CY. A general method of empirical Q-matrix validation. Psychometrika. 2016; 81: 253-73.
     Google Scholar
  11. Horton NJ, Kleinman KP. Much ado about nothing: A comparison of missing data methods and software to fit incomplete data regression models. The American Statistician. 2007; 61(1):79-90.
     Google Scholar
  12. Groß J, George AC. On permissible attribute classes in noncompensatory cognitive diagnosis models. Methodology. 2014.
     Google Scholar
  13. Henson RA, Templin JL, Willse JT. Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika. 2009; 74(1):191-210.
     Google Scholar
  14. Junker BW, Sijtsma K. Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2001; 25(3): 258-72.
     Google Scholar
  15. Köhn HF, Chiu CY. A proof of the duality of the DINA model and the DINO model. Journal of Classification. 2016; 33(1): 171-84.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)