ArticleApplied psychological measurement2021
Improving Accuracy and Usage by Correctly Selecting: The Effects of Model Selection in Cognitive Diagnosis Computerized Adaptive Testing.
Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods for online calibration of Q-matrix and item parameters for polytomous responses in cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Cognitive diagnostic assessment: A Q-matrix constraint-based neural network method.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the financial services industry: A bibliometric review.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Improving reliability estimation in cognitive diagnosis modeling.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- On Bank Assembly and Block Selection in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Adaptive Assessments.Educational and psychological measurement · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decisions on how to calibrate an item bank might have major implications in the subsequent performance of the adaptive algorithms. One of these decisions is model selection, which can become problematic in the context of cognitive diagnosis computerized adaptive testing, given the wide range of models available. This article aims to determine whether model selection indices can be used to improve the performance of adaptive tests. Three factors were considered in a simulation study, that is, calibration sample size, Q-matrix complexity, and item bank length. Results based on the true item parameters, and general and single reduced model estimates were compared to those of the combination of appropriate models. The results indicate that fitting a single reduced model or a general model will not generally provide optimal results. Results based on the combination of models selected by the fit index were always closer to those obtained with the true item parameters. The implications for practical settings include an improvement in terms of classification accuracy and, consequently, testing time, and a more balanced use of the item bank. An
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.