Reconsidering Cutoff Points in the General Method of Empirical Q-Matrix Validation

Autor/inn/en	Nájera, Pablo; Sorrel, Miguel A.; Abad, Francisco José
Titel	Reconsidering Cutoff Points in the General Method of Empirical Q-Matrix Validation
Quelle	In: Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79 (2019) 4, S.727-753 (27 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0013-1644
DOI	10.1177/0013164418822700
Schlagwörter	Matrices; Statistical Analysis; Models; Classification; Validity; Accuracy; Test Items + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Matrizenrechnung; Statistische Analyse; Analogiemodell; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Gültigkeit; Test content; Testaufgabe
Abstract	Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are latent class multidimensional statistical models that help classify people accurately by using a set of discrete latent variables, commonly referred to as attributes. These models require a Q-matrix that indicates the attributes involved in each item. A potential problem is that the Q-matrix construction process, typically performed by domain experts, is subjective in nature. This might lead to the existence of Q-matrix misspecifications that can lead to inaccurate classifications. For this reason, several empirical Q-matrix validation methods have been developed in the recent years. de la Torre and Chiu proposed one of the most popular methods, based on a discrimination index. However, some questions related to the usefulness of the method with empirical data remained open due the restricted number of conditions examined, and the use of a unique cutoff point (EPS) regardless of the data conditions. This article includes two simulation studies to test this validation method under a wider range of conditions, with the purpose of providing it with a higher generalization, and to empirically determine the most suitable EPS considering the data conditions. Results show a good overall performance of the method, the relevance of the different studied factors, and that using a single indiscriminate EPS is not acceptable. Specific guidelines for selecting an appropriate EPS are provided in the discussion. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01