Main Article Content
Measurement models need to properly delineate the real aspect of examinees’ response processes for measurement accuracy purposes. To avoid invalid inferences, fit of examinees’ response data to the model is studied through person-fit statistics. Misfit between the examinee response data and measurement model may be due to invalid models and/or examinee’s aberrant response behavior such as cheating, creative responding, and random responding. Hierarchy consistency index (HCI) was introduced as a person-fit statistics to assess classification reliability of particular cognitive diagnosis models. This study examines the HCI in terms of its usefulness under nonhierarchical attribute conditions and under different item types. Moreover, current form of HCI formulation only considers the information based on correct answers only. We argue and demonstrate that more information could be obtained by incorporating the information that may be obtained from incorrect responses. Therefore, this study considers the full-version of the HCI (i.e., FHCI). Results indicate that current form of HCI is sensitive to misfitting item types (i.e., basic or more complex) and examinee attribute patterns. In other words, HCI is affected by the attribute pattern an examinee has as well as by the item s/he aberrantly responded. Yet, FHCI is not severely affected by item types under any examinee attribute pattern.
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
de la Torre, J. (2009b). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115-130.
Doornik, J. A. (2011). Object-oriented matrix programming using Ox (Version 6.20). London: Timberlake Consultants Press.
Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258-272.
Leighton, J. P., Gierl, M. J., & Hunka, S. M. (2004). The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: A variation on Tatsuokas rule-space approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 205-237.
Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187-212.
Robitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., George, A. C., & Uenlue, A. (2014). CDM: Cognitive diagnosis modeling. R package version 5.8-9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CDM
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
Templin, J. L., & Bradshaw, L. (2014). Hierarchical diagnostic classification models: A family of models for estimating and testing attribute hierarchies. Psychometrika, 79, 317-339.