Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Diagnostic Classification Models pp 155–169Cite as

The G-DINA Model Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment ((MEMA))

Abstract

The development of cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) has been prolific since the turn of the century; however, they have often been developed in such a way that they lack an overall connective framework. The purpose of this chapter is to review the G-DINA framework. As a general model, it subsumes several simpler and widely-known CDMs; as a general framework, it has also served as the foundation for a variety of model extensions and new methodological developments. We will also discuss associated topics, which include model estimation, Q-matrix validation, computerized adaptive testing, and model selection as they relate to the reviewed models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, L. W. (1943). The principle of parsimony in empirical science. The Journal of Philosophy, 40, 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Simon, A., Budescu, D. V., & Nevo, B. A. (1997). Comparative study of measures of partial knowledge in multiple choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 65–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., & de la Torre, J. (2013). A general cognitive diagnosis model for expert-defined polytomous attributes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 419–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., de la Torre, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Relative and absolute fit evaluation in cognitive diagnosis modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Y. (2009). When cognitive diagnosis meets computerized adaptive testing: CD-CAT. Psychometrika, 74, 619–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J. (2010, July). The partial-credit DINA model. Paper Presented at the International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J. (2015, December). Cognitively diagnostic assessment and cognitive diagnosis modeling: An example from start to finish. Invited Presentation at the Global Chinese Conference on Educational Information and Assessment and Chinese Association of Psychological Testing Annual Conference, Taichung, Taiwan.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2016). A general method of empirical Q-matrix validation. Psychometrika, 81, 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2008). Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: An analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika, 73, 595–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Lee, Y.-S. (2013). Evaluating the Wald test for item-level comparison of saturated and reduced models in cognitive diagnosis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Ma, W. (2016, August). Cognitive diagnosis modeling: A general framework approach and its implementation in R. A Short Course at the Fourth Conference on Statistical Methods in Psychometrics, Columbia University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Ma, W. (2017, November). Do I complete Q ? Invited Presentation at the Fifth Conference on the Statistical Methods in Psychometrics, Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Minchen, N. D. (2014). Cognitively diagnostic assessments and the cognitive diagnosis model framework. Psicología Educativa, 20, 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J., & Minchen, N. D. (2016, May). Modeling response time in cognitive diagnosis. Invited Presentation at the Graduate Institute of Educational Measurement and Statistics Colloquium, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. (2013). Hierarchical item response models for cognitive diagnosis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartz, S. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, L., & Terzi, R. (2017, April). Examining DIF in the proportional reasoning test using various Wald test formulations. Paper Presented at the Meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, San Antonio, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M., de la Torre, J., & Barrada, J. R. (2015). New item selection methods for cognitive diagnosis computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(3), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W. (2018). A diagnostic tree model for polytomous responses with multiple strategies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12137

  • Ma, W., & de la Torre, J. (2016). A sequential cognitive diagnosis model for polytomous responses. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 69, 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W., Iaconangelo, C., & de la Torre, J. (2016). Model similarity, model selection, and attribute classification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40, 200–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minchen, N. D., & de la Torre, J. (2018). A general cognitive diagnosis model for continuous-response data. Measurement: Interdisciplinary research and perspective, 16, 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minchen, N. D., de la Torre, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). A cognitive diagnosis model for continuous response. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 42, 651–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noel, Y. (2014). A beta unfolding model for continuous bounded responses. Psychometrika, 79, 647–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noel, Y., & Dauvier, B. (2007). A beta item response model for continuous bounded responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samejima, F. (1973). Homogeneous case of the continuous response model. Psychometrika, 38, 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule-space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Templin, J. L., Rupp, A., Henson, R., Jang, E., & Ahmed, M. (2008, March). Cognitive diagnosis models for nominal response data. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjoe, H., & de la Torre, J. (2013a). Designing cognitively-based proportional reasoning problems as an application of modern psychological measurement models. Journal of Mathematics Education, 6, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjoe, H., & de la Torre, J. (2013b). The identification and validation process of proportional reasoning attributes: An application of a cognitive diagnosis modeling framework. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M. (2014). The log-linear cognitive diagnostic model (LCDM) as a special case of the general diagnostic model (GDM) (Research Report No. RR-14-40). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12043

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Learning, Development and Diversity, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Jimmy de la Torre

  2. Pearson, Bronx, NY, USA

    Nathan D. Minchen

Authors
  1. Jimmy de la Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan D. Minchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jimmy de la Torre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Matthias von Davier

  2. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Young-Sun Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Torre, J.d., Minchen, N.D. (2019). The G-DINA Model Framework. In: von Davier, M., Lee, YS. (eds) Handbook of Diagnostic Classification Models. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05584-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05584-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05583-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05584-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation