IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v77y2012i4p763-781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncovering the Best Skill Multimap by Constraining the Error Probabilities of the Gain-Loss Model

Author

Listed:
  • Pasquale Anselmi
  • Egidio Robusto
  • Luca Stefanutti

Abstract

The Gain-Loss model is a probabilistic skill multimap model for assessing learning processes. In practical applications, more than one skill multimap could be plausible, while none corresponds to the true one. The article investigates whether constraining the error probabilities is a way of uncovering the best skill assignment among a number of alternatives. A simulation study shows that this approach allows the detection of the models that are closest to the correct one. An empirical application shows that it allows the detection of models that are entirely derived from plausible assumptions about the skills required for solving the problems. Copyright The Psychometric Society 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Pasquale Anselmi & Egidio Robusto & Luca Stefanutti, 2012. "Uncovering the Best Skill Multimap by Constraining the Error Probabilities of the Gain-Loss Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 763-781, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:77:y:2012:i:4:p:763-781
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-012-9286-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11336-012-9286-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-012-9286-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jimmy de la Torre & Jeffrey Douglas, 2008. "Model Evaluation and Multiple Strategies in Cognitive Diagnosis: An Analysis of Fraction Subtraction Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 595-624, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luca Stefanutti & Debora Chiusole & Pasquale Anselmi & Andrea Spoto, 2020. "Extending the Basic Local Independence Model to Polytomous Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(3), pages 684-715, September.
    2. Pasquale Anselmi & Egidio Robusto & Luca Stefanutti & Debora Chiusole, 2016. "An Upgrading Procedure for Adaptive Assessment of Knowledge," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(2), pages 461-482, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hans-Friedrich Köhn & Chia-Yi Chiu, 2018. "How to Build a Complete Q-Matrix for a Cognitively Diagnostic Test," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 35(2), pages 273-299, July.
    2. Hans-Friedrich Köhn & Chia-Yi Chiu, 2017. "A Procedure for Assessing the Completeness of the Q-Matrices of Cognitively Diagnostic Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 112-132, March.
    3. Liu, Yaohui & Zhan, Peida & Fu, Yanbin & Chen, Qipeng & Man, Kaiwen & Luo, Yikun, 2023. "Using a multi-strategy eye-tracking psychometric model to measure intelligence and identify cognitive strategy in Raven's advanced progressive matrices," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Laine Bradshaw & Jonathan Templin, 2014. "Combining Item Response Theory and Diagnostic Classification Models: A Psychometric Model for Scaling Ability and Diagnosing Misconceptions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 403-425, July.
    5. Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2019. "An Exploratory Diagnostic Model for Ordinal Responses with Binary Attributes: Identifiability and Estimation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 921-940, December.
    6. Pasquale Anselmi & Egidio Robusto & Luca Stefanutti & Debora Chiusole, 2016. "An Upgrading Procedure for Adaptive Assessment of Knowledge," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(2), pages 461-482, June.
    7. Luca Stefanutti & Debora Chiusole & Pasquale Anselmi & Andrea Spoto, 2020. "Extending the Basic Local Independence Model to Polytomous Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(3), pages 684-715, September.
    8. Meng-Ta Chung & Shui-Lien Chen, 2021. "A Deterministic Learning Algorithm Estimating the Q-Matrix for Cognitive Diagnosis Models," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(23), pages 1-11, November.
    9. Jimmy de la Torre, 2011. "The Generalized DINA Model Framework," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 179-199, April.
    10. Hong-Yun Liu & Xiao-Feng You & Wen-Yi Wang & Shu-Liang Ding & Hua-Hua Chang, 2013. "The Development of Computerized Adaptive Testing with Cognitive Diagnosis for an English Achievement Test in China," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 30(2), pages 152-172, July.
    11. Jürgen Heller & Luca Stefanutti & Pasquale Anselmi & Egidio Robusto, 2015. "On the Link between Cognitive Diagnostic Models and Knowledge Space Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(4), pages 995-1019, December.
    12. Yinghan Chen & Ying Liu & Steven Andrew Culpepper & Yuguo Chen, 2021. "Inferring the Number of Attributes for the Exploratory DINA Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(1), pages 30-64, March.
    13. Yinghan Chen & Steven Andrew Culpepper & Yuguo Chen & Jeffrey Douglas, 2018. "Bayesian Estimation of the DINA Q matrix," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 89-108, March.
    14. Yinghan Chen & Shiyu Wang, 2023. "Bayesian Estimation of Attribute Hierarchy for Cognitive Diagnosis Models," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 48(6), pages 810-841, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:77:y:2012:i:4:p:763-781. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.