Abstract
Cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) have great promise for providing diagnostic information to aid learning and instruction, and a large number of CDMs have been proposed. However, the assumptions and performances of different CDMs and their applications in regard to reading comprehension tests are not fully understood. In the present study, we compared the performance of a saturated model (G-DINA), two compensatory models (DINO, ACDM), and two non-compensatory models (DINA, RRUM) with the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB) reading test. Compared to the saturated G-DINA model, the ACDM showed comparable model fit and similar skill classification results. The RRUM was slightly worse than the ACDM and G-DINA in terms of model fit and classification results, whereas the more restrictive DINA and DINO performed much worse than the other three models. The findings of this study highlighted the process and considerations pertinent to model selection in applications of CDMs with reading tests.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
