Latent transition analysis (LTA) was initially developed to provide a means of measuring change in dynamic latent variables. In this article, we illustrate the use of a cognitive diagnostic model, the DINA model, as the measurement model in a LTA, thereby demonstrating a means of analyzing change in cognitive skills over time. An example is presented of an instructional treatment on a sample of seventh-grade students in several classrooms in a Midwestern school district. In the example, it is demonstrated how hypotheses could be framed and then tested regarding the form of the change in different groups within the population. Both manifest and latent groups also are defined and used to test additional hypotheses about change specific to particular subpopulations. Results suggest that the use of a DINA measurement model expands the utility of LTA to practical problems in educational measurement research.
AkaikeH. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,19, 716-723.
2.
AndersenE. B. (1985). Estimating latent correlations between repeated testings. Psychometrika,50, 3-16.
3.
BereiterC. (1963). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In HarrisC. W. (Ed.), Problems in measuring change (pp. 3-20). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
BoscardinC. K.MuthénB.FrancisD. J.BakerE. L. (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories. Journal of Educational Psychology,100, 192-208.
5.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS. Y.MehtaZ. D.WatsonE. (2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural Math skills of average- and low-achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 5-22.
6.
BottgeB. A.RuedaE.SerlinR. C.HungY. H.KwonJ. M. (2007). Shrinking achievement difference with anchored math problems: Challenges and possibilities. Journal of Special Education,41, 31-49.
7.
CohenA. S. (2006). Analysis of cognitive strategies used in enhanced anchored instruction in a technology rich learning environment (Technical report).
8.
CollinsL. M.WugalterS. E. (1992). Latent class models for stage-sequential dynamic latent variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research,27, 131-157.
9.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences,18, 329-337.
10.
de la TorreJ.DouglasJ. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika,69, 333-353.
11.
DiBelloL. V.StoutW. F.RoussosL. A. (1995). Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In FrederiksenN.GlaserR.LesgoldA.ShaftoM. (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 361-390). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
EmbretsonS. E. (1991). Implications of a multidimensional latent trait model for measuring change. In CollinsL. M.HornJ. L. (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 184-197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula.
14.
HaertelE. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement,26, 333-352.
HartzS. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
17.
JunkerB.SijtsmaK. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement,25, 258-272.
18.
LordF. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
19.
LordF. M.NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
MacreadyG. B.DaytonC. M. (1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics,33, 379-416.
21.
MarcoulidesG. A.GottfriedA. E.GottfriedA. W.OliverP. (2008). Latent transition analysis of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through adolescence. Educational Research and Evaluation,14, 411-427.
22.
MuthénL.MuthénB. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide. Version 7. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
23.
NylundK. (2007). Latent transition analysis: Modeling extensions and an application to peer victimization (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.
24.
PatzR. J.JunkerB. W. (1999). A straightforward approach to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for item response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,24, 146-178.
25.
RostJ. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement,14, 271-282.
26.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics,6, 461-464.
SpiegelhalterD. J.BestN. G.CarlinB. P.van der LindeA. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,64, 583-616.
29.
SpiegelhalterD. J.ThomasA.BestN. (2003). WinBUGS (version 1.4) [computer program]. Cambridge, England: MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health.
30.
TemplinJ. (2006). CDM: Cognitive diagnosis modeling with Mplus [Computer software]. (Author owned: Retrievable on request)
31.
TrentacostaC. J.CrissM. M.ShawD. S.LacourseE.HydeL. W.DishionT. J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of joint trajectories of mother-son conflict and warmth during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development,82, 1676-1690.
