Skip to main content

Applying the General Diagnostic Model to Proficiency Data from a National Skills Survey

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Diagnostic Classification Models

Abstract

Large-scale educational surveys (including NAEP, TIMSS, PISA) utilize item-response-theory (IRT) calibration together with a latent regression model to make inferences about subgroup ability distributions, including subgroup means, percentiles, as well as standard deviations. It has long been recognized that grouping variables not included in the latent regression model can produce secondary bias in estimates of group differences (Mislevy, RJ, Psychometrika 56:177–196, 1991). To accommodate the ever-increasing number of background variables collected and required for reporting purposes, a principal component analysis based on the background variables (von Davier M, Sinharay S, Oranje A, Beaton AE, The statistical procedures used in national assessment of educational progress: recent developments and future directions. In: Rao CR, Sinharay S (eds) Handbook of statistics: vol. 26. Psychometrics. Elsevier B.V, Amsterdam, pp 1039–1055, 2007; Moran R, Dresher A, Results from NAEP marginal estimation research on multivariate scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, 2007; Oranje A, Li D, On the role of background variables in large scale survey assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY, 2008) is utilized to keep the number of predictors in the latent regression models within a reasonable range. However, even this approach often results in the inclusion of several hundred variables, and it is unknown whether the principal component approach or similar approaches (such as latent-class approaches) are able to generate consistent estimates for individual subgroups (e.g., Wetzel E, Xu X, von Davier M, Educ Psychol Meas 75(5):1–25, 2014). The primary goal of the current study is to provide an exemplary application of diagnostic models for large-scale-assessment data. Specifically, a latent-class structure is used for covariates while continuing to use IRT models for item responses in the analytic model. Previous applications focused on adult literacy data (von Davier M, Yamamoto K, A class of models for cognitive diagnosis. Paper presented at the 4th Spearman invitational conference, Philadelphia, PA, 2004), as well as large-scale English-language testing programs (von Davier M; A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (Research report no. RR-05-16). Educational Testing Service, Princeton, 2005, von Davier M, The mixture general diagnostic model. In: Hancock GR, Samuelsen KM (eds) Advances in latent variable mixture models. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, pp 255–274, 2008), while the current application uses diagnostic modeling approaches on data from NAEP.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is relevant in cases where Bayesian estimates of ability are used, and the knowledge about grouping, including the differences in ability distributions across groups, is utilized in the estimation. In cases where maximum-likelihood (ML), or bias-corrected ML is used, a multiple group model with item parameter equality will not produce more than trivially different estimates when different grouping variables are used, unless the item parameter estimates are affected by the grouping variables used. Note however, that ML and bias-corrected ML do not reduce measurement error due to information about covariates, which is the main reason why background variables are used in latent regression models together with Bayesian ability estimates.

References

  • Dresher, A. (2006, April). Results from NAEP marginal estimation research. Presented at the annual meeting of the national council on measurement in education, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, S., von Davier, M., & Lee, Y.-H. (2009). Comparison of multidimensional item response models: multivariate normal ability distributions versus multivariate polytomous ability distributions (Research Report No. RR-08-45). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. (1992). The design of the national assessment of educational progress. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J. (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56, 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristic from sparse matrix samples of item responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, R., & Dresher, A. (2007). Results from NAEP marginal estimation research on multivariate scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national council on measurement in education, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oranje, A., & Li, D. (2008, April). On the role of background variables in large scale survey assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national council on measurement in education, New York, NY.

    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 

  • Thomas, N. (2002). The role of secondary covariates when estimating latent trait population distributions. Psychometrika, 67, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data (Research Report No. RR-05-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M. (2008). The mixture general diagnostic model. In G. R. Hancock & K. M. Samuelsen (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 255–274). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M. (2009, March). Some notes on the reinvention of latent structure models as diagnostic classification models. Measurement—Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 7(1), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., & Mislevy, R. J. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful? IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 2, 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., & Rost, J. (2007). Mixture distribution item response models. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 643–661). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., & Rost, J. (2016). Logistic mixture-distribution response models. In W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory. Vol. 1: Models (pp. 393–406). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., & Sinharay, S. (2014).. Analytics in international large-scale assessments: Item response theory and population models). In L. Rutkowski, M. von Davier, & D. Rutkowski (Eds.), Handbook of international large-scale assessment: Background, technical issues, and methods of data analysis (pp. 155–174). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., Sinharay, S., Oranje, A., & Beaton, A. E. (2007). The statistical procedures used in national assessment of educational progress: Recent developments and future directions. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 1039–1055). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2004, October). A class of models for cognitive diagnosis. Paper presented at the 4th Spearman invitational conference, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, E., Xu, X., & von Davier, M. (2014). An alternative way to model population ability distributions in large-scale educational surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(5), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., & von Davier, M. (2008a). Fitting the structured general diagnostic model to NAEP data (Research Report No. RR-08-27). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., & von Davier, M. (2008b). Comparing multiple-group multinomial loglinear models for multidimensional skill distributions in the general diagnostic model (Research Report No. RR-08-35). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xueli Xu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

Xu, X., von Davier, M. (2019). Applying the General Diagnostic Model to Proficiency Data from a National Skills Survey. 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_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05584-4_23

  • 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