At present, most existing cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are designed to either identify the presence and absence of skills or misconceptions, but not both. This article proposes a CDM that can be used to simultaneously identify what skills and misconceptions students possess. In addition, it proposes the use of the expectation-maximization algorithm to estimate the model parameters. A simulation study is conducted to evaluate the viability of the proposed model and algorithm. Real data are analyzed to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model, and compare it with existing CDMs. Furthermore, a real data–based simulation study is conducted to determine how the correct classification rates in the context of the proposed model can be improved. Issues related to the proposed model and future research are discussed.
AnderssonB. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation: A common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 155-171.
2.
BradshawL.TemplinL. (2014). Combining item response theory and diagnostic classification models: A psychometric model for scaling ability and diagnosing misconceptions. Psychometrika, 79, 403-425.
3.
Brault FoisyL.-M.PotvinP.RiopelM.MassonS. (2015). Is inhibition involved in overcoming a common physics misconception in mechanics?Trends in Neuroscience & Education, 4, 26-36.
4.
ClementJ. (1982a). Algebra word-problems solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16-30.
5.
ClementJ. (1982b). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66-71.
6.
ClementJ. (1987, April). The use of analogies and anchoring intuitions to remediate misconceptions in mechanics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
7.
de la TorreJ. (2008). An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 343-362.
8.
de la TorreJ. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115-130.
9.
de la TorreJ.HuoY. (2014). Estimating a cognitive diagnostic model for multiple strategies via the EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 464-485.
10.
de la TorreJ.LeeY.-S. (2010). A note on the invariance of the DINA model parameters. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 115-127.
11.
de la TorreJ.MinchenN. (2014). Cognitively diagnostic assessments and the cognitive diagnosis model Framework. Psicología Educativa, 20, 89-97.
12.
de la TorreJ.van der ArkL. A.RossiG. (2015). Analysis of clinical data from cognitive diagnosis modeling framework. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0748175615569110
13.
DiBelloL. V.HensonR. A.StoutW. F. (2015). A family of generalized diagnostic classification models for multiple choice option-based scoring. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39, 62-79.
14.
HaertelE. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301-321.
15.
HuoY.de la TorreJ. (2014). Estimating a cognitive diagnostic model for multiple strategies via the EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 464-485.
16.
JunkerB. W.SijtsmaK. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258-272.
17.
KuoB.-C.ChenC.-H.YangC.-W.MokM. M. C. (2016). Cognitive diagnostic models for tests with multiple choice and constructed response items. Educational Psychology, 36, 1115-1133.
18.
LinH.-S. (2012). An analysis on the effect of different on-line diagnostic test items of multiplication and division of fraction (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan.
19.
MastersJ. (2014, April). The diagnostic geometry assessment system: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
20.
MinstrellJ. (2001). Facets of students’ thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In CrowleyK.SchunnC. D.OkadaT. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications for professional, instructional, and everyday science (pp. 415-443). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
NesherP. (1987). Towards an instructional theory: The role of students’ misconceptions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 7, 33-40.
22.
PotvinP.MassonS.LafortuneS.CyrG. (2015). Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 21-43.
23.
ShaughnessyJ. M. (1977). Misconceptions of probability: An experiment with a small-group, activity-based model building approach to introductory probability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 295-316.
24.
SmithJ. P.diSessaA. A.RoschelleJ. (1993). Misconception reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Science, 3, 115-163.
25.
SmolleckL.HershbergerV. (2011). Playing with science: An investigation of young children’s science conceptions and misconceptions. Current Issues in Education, 14. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view
26.
StavyR.BabaiR.TsamirP.TiroshD.LinF.-L.McRobbieC. (2006). Are intuitive rules universal?International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 417-436.
27.
StavyR.TiroshD. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of “more of A—More of B”. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 653-667.
28.
TatsuokaK. K. (1983). Rule-space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
29.
TemplinJ. L.HensonR. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287-305.
30.
ThompsonF.LogueS. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science. International Education Journal, 7, 553-559.
31.
VosniadouS.VerschaffelL. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instructions, 14, 445-451.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
