The G-DINA Model Framework

  • Jimmy de la TorreEmail author
  • Nathan D. Minchen
Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)


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.


Cognitive diagnosis models G-DINA model General framework 


  1. 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
  2. Beck, L. W. (1943). The principle of parsimony in empirical science. The Journal of Philosophy, 40, 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, J., & de la Torre, J. (2013). A general cognitive diagnosis model for expert-defined polytomous attributes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng, Y. (2009). When cognitive diagnosis meets computerized adaptive testing: CD-CAT. Psychometrika, 74, 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. de la Torre, J., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2016). A general method of empirical Q-matrix validation. Psychometrika, 81, 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. de la Torre, J., & Minchen, N. D. (2014). Cognitively diagnostic assessments and the cognitive diagnosis model framework. Psicología Educativa, 20, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen, M. (2013). Hierarchical item response models for cognitive diagnosis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  22. Hartz, S. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma, W. (2018). A diagnostic tree model for polytomous responses with multiple strategies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Advanced online publication.
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma, W., Iaconangelo, C., & de la Torre, J. (2016). Model similarity, model selection, and attribute classification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40, 200–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Noel, Y. (2014). A beta unfolding model for continuous bounded responses. Psychometrika, 79, 647–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noel, Y., & Dauvier, B. (2007). A beta item response model for continuous bounded responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Samejima, F. (1973). Homogeneous case of the continuous response model. Psychometrika, 38, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule-space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Learning, Development and DiversityUniversity of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.PearsonBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations