This article provides a review of software packages for fitting maximum likelihood estimation of the deterministic input, noisy “and” gate (DINA) model. Six software packages—flexMIRT, Latent GOLD, mdltm, Mplus, OxEdit, and R—are considered. Each package is reviewed regarding data manipulation, statistical capabilities, output, and documentation. The results of these packages are compared using a sample data set and a Q-matrix. The article aims to give the reader a summary of the different capabilities of each package.
BoltD.ChenH.DiBelloL.HartzS.HensonR.RoussosL.TemplinJ. (2008). The Arpeggio suite: Software for cognitive skills diagnostic assessment [Computer software and manual]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems.
3.
CaiL. (2017). flexMIRT® version 3.51: Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric Group.
4.
ChiuC.-Y.KöhnH.-F.WuH.-M. (2016). Fitting the reduced RUM with Mplus: A tutorial. International Journal of Testing, 16, 1-21.
DeCarloL. T. (2011). On the analysis of fraction subtraction data: The DINA model, classification, latent class sizes, and the Q-matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 8-26.
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. (2009a). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115-130.
9.
de la TorreJ. (2009b, April). Estimation code for the G-DINA model. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
10.
de la TorreJ. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179-199.
11.
DoornikJ. A. (2018). An object-oriented matrix programming language (Ox 8.0) [Computer software]. London, England: Timberlake Consultants.
GeorgeA. C.RobitzschA.KieferT.GrossJ.UenlueA. (2016). The R package CDM for cognitive diagnosis models. Journal of Statistical Software, 74, 1-24.
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.
HallquistM. N.WileyJ. F. (2018). Mplus automation: An R package for facilitating large-scale latent variable analyses in Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 621-638.
16.
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, IL.
17.
HensonR.TemplinJ.WillseJ. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191-121.
18.
HoutsC. R.CaiL. (2013). flexMIRT user’s manual (version 2.0): Flexible multilevel multidimensional item analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: Vector Psychometric.
19.
HuebnerA. (2010). An overview of recent developments in cognitive diagnostic computer adaptive assessments. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15, 1-7.
20.
JunkerB. W.SijtsmaK. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258-272.
21.
LeightonJ.GierlM. (Eds.). (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide. 8th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
23.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.4.3) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
24.
RavandH.RobitzschA. (2015). Cognitive diagnostic modeling using R. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20, 1-12.
RuppA. A. (2009, April). Software for calibrating diagnostic classification models: An overview of the current state-of-the-art. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
27.
RuppA. A.TemplinJ. L. (2008). Unique characteristics of diagnostic classification models: A comprehensive review of the current state-of-the-art. Measurement, 6, 219-262.
28.
SessomsJ.HensonR. A. (2018). Applications of diagnostic classification models: A literature review and critical commentary. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 16, 1-17.
29.
SpiegelhalterD.ThomasA.BestN. (2003). WinBUGS (Version 1.4). [Computer software]. Cambridge, UK: Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health.
30.
TatsuokaK. (1990). Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In FrederiksenN.GlaserR.LesgoldA.SaftoM. (Eds.), Monitoring skills and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453-488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
TatsuokaK. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
32.
TatsuokaK. K.TatsuokaC. (2009, April). Estimating the rule-space methodology and POSET models with BUGLIB Paper presented at the AERA meeting, San Diego, CA.
33.
TemplinJ. (2006). CDM user’s guide. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
34.
TemplinJ. L.HensonR. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287-305.
35.
TemplinJ.HensonR.DouglasJ. (2007). General theory and estimation of cognitive diagnosis models: Using Mplus to derive model estimates. 2007 National Council on Measurement in Education training session, Chicago, Illinois.
36.
TemplinJ. L.HoffmanL. (2013). Obtaining diagnostic classification model estimates using Mplus. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32, 37-50.
37.
VermuntJ. K.MagidsonJ. (2005). Technical guide for latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and advanced [Computer software and manual]. Belmont, CA: Statistical Innovations.
38.
von DavierM. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (Research Report No. RR-05-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
von DavierM. (2014a). The DINA model as a constrained general diagnostic model: Two variants of a model equivalency. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 49-71.
41.
von DavierM. (2014b). The Log-linear Cognitive Diagnostic Model (LCDM) as a special case of the General Diagnostic Model (GDM) (ETS RR-14-40). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
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.
