Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm is a commonly used technique for the parameter estimation of the diagnostic classification models (DCMs) with a prespecified Q-matrix; however, it requires O(2^K) calculations in its expectation-step, which significantly slows down the computation when the number of attributes, K, is large. This study proposes an efficient Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro (eMHRM) algorithm, needing only O(K + 1) calculations in the Monte Carlo expectation step. Furthermore, the item parameters and structural parameters are approximated via the Robbins-Monro algorithm, which does not require time-consuming nonlinear optimization procedures. A series of simulation studies were conducted to compare the eMHRM with the EM and a Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm regarding the parameter recovery and execution time. The outcomes presented in this article reveal that the eMHRM is much more computationally efficient than the EM and MH, and it tends to produce better estimates than the EM when K is large, suggesting that the eMHRM is a promising parameter estimation method for high-dimensional DCMs.

Keywords

diagnostic classification models stochastic parameter estimation high dimensionality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cai

(2010). High-dimensional exploratory item factor analysis by a Metropolis–Hastings Robbins–Monro algorithm. Psychometrika, 75(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9136-x

Chen

Culpepper

Liang

(2020). A sparse latent class model for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 85(1), 121–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-019-09693-2

de la Torre

(2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7

Dempster

A. P.

Laird

N. M.

Rubin

D. B.

(1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x

(2020). Partial identifiability of restricted latent class models. The Annals of Statistics, 48(4), 2082–2107. https://doi.org/10.1214/19-AOS1878

Henson

R. A.

Templin

J. L.

Willse

J. T.

(2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9089-5

Jiang

(2018). Integrating differential evolution optimization to cognitive diagnostic model estimation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02142

Lee

Y. S.

Park

Y. S.

Taylan

(2011). A cognitive diagnostic modeling of attribute mastery in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and the US national sample using the TIMSS 2007. International Journal of Testing, 11(2), 144–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.534571

Liu

C. W.

Andersson

Skrondal

(2020). A constrained Metropolis–Hastings Robbins–Monro algorithm for Q matrix estimation in DINA models. Psychometrika, 85(2), 322–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-020-09707-4

10.

Liu

J. S.

(1996). Peskun’s theorem and a modified discrete-state Gibbs sampler. Biometrika, 83(3), 681–682. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/83.3.681

11.

Louis

T. A.

(1982). Finding the observed information matrix when using the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 44(2), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1982.tb01203.x

12.

de la Torre

(2020). GDINA: An R package for cognitive diagnosis modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 93(14), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v093.i14

13.

Macready

G. B.

Dayton

C. M.

(1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986002002099

14.

Madigan

York

Allard

(1995). Bayesian graphical models for discrete data. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, 63(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403615

15.

Polyak

B. T.

Juditsky

A. B.

(1992). Acceleration of stochastic approximation by averaging. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 30(4), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1137/0330046

16.

Robbins

Monro

(1951). A stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(3), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729586

17.

Ruppert

(1991). Stochastic approximation. In Ghosh

B. K.

Sen

P. K.

(Eds.), Handbook in sequential analysis (pp. 503–529). Marcel Dekker.

18.

Sessoms

Henson

R. A.

(2018). Applications of diagnostic classification models: A literature review and critical commentary. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2018.1435104

19.

Tanner

M. A.

Wong

W. H.

(1987). The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. Journal of the American statistical Association, 82(398), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289460

20.

Tatsuoka

K. K.

(1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1983.tb00212.x

21.

Tatsuoka

K. K.

Corter

J. E.

Tatsuoka

(2004). Patterns of diagnosed mathematical content and process skills in TIMSS-R across a sample of 20 countries. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 901–926. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041004901

22.

Wang

Shi

Zhang

(2021). Sequential Gibbs sampling algorithm for cognitive diagnosis models with many attributes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2021.1896352

23.

(2017). Identifiability of restricted latent class models with binary responses. The Annals of Statistics, 45(2), 675–707. https://doi.org/10.1214/16-AOS1464

24.

Shang

(2018). Identifying latent structures in restricted latent class models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523), 1284–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2017.1340889

25.

Zhang

(2016). Identifiability of diagnostic classification models. Psychometrika, 81(3), 625–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9471-z

26.

Yamaguchi

Okada

(2020). Variational Bayes inference algorithm for the saturated diagnostic classification model. Psychometrika, 85(4), 973–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-020-09739-w

27.

Yamaguchi

Templin

(2021). A Gibbs sampling algorithm with monotonicity constraints for diagnostic classification models. Journal of Classification, 39, 24–54. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-021-09392-7

28.

Yang

J. S.

Cai

(2014). Estimation of contextual effects through nonlinear multilevel latent variable modeling with a Metropolis–Hastings Robbins–Monro algorithm. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(6), 550–582. https://doi.org/10.76998614559972

29.

Zhang

Chen

(2020). Computation for latent variable model estimation: A unified stochastic proximal framework. Psychometrika, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-022-09863-9

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.

0.00 MB

6.84 MB

Efficient Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro Algorithm for High-Dimensional Diagnostic Classification Models

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material