Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36127563›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

Improving reliability estimation in cognitive diagnosis modeling.

Rodrigo Schames Kreitchmann, Jimmy de la Torre, Miguel A Sorrel, Pablo Nájera, Francisco J Abad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rodrigo Schames KreitchmannDepartment of Social Psychology and Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Iván Pavlov, 6, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain. rschames@faculty.ie.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5199-9828
Jimmy de la TorreFaculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong.
Miguel A SorrelDepartment of Social Psychology and Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Iván Pavlov, 6, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain.
Pablo NájeraDepartment of Social Psychology and Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Iván Pavlov, 6, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain.
Francisco J AbadDepartment of Social Psychology and Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Iván Pavlov, 6, Ciudad Universitaria de Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are used in educational, clinical, or personnel selection settings to classify respondents with respect to discrete attributes, identifying strengths and needs, and thus allowing to provide tailored training/treatment. As in any assessment, an accurate reliability estimation is crucial for valid score interpretations. In this sense, most CDM reliability indices are based on the posterior probabilities of the estimated attribute profiles. These posteriors are traditionally computed using point estimates for the model parameters as approximations to their populational values. If the uncertainty around these parameters is unaccounted for, the posteriors may be overly peaked, deriving into overestimated reliabilities. This article presents a multiple imputation (MI) procedure to integrate out the model parameters in the estimation of the posterior distributions, thus correcting the reliability estimation. A simulation study was conducted to compare the MI procedure with the traditional reliability estimation. Five factors were manipulated: the attribute structure, the CDM model (DINA and G-DINA), test length, sample size, and item quality. Additionally, an illustration using the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English data was analyzed. The effect of sample size was studied by sampling subsets of subjects from the complete data. In both studies, the traditional reliability estimation systematically provided overestimated reliabilities, whereas the MI procedure offered more accurate results. Accordingly, practitioners in small educational or clinical settings should be aware that the reliability estimation using model parameter point estimates may be positively biased. R codes for the MI procedure are made available.

Indexed as

AwarenessComputer SimulationHumansReproducibility of ResultsClassification accuracyCognitive diagnosisDiagnostic classificationMultiple imputationReliability

Identifiers

PMID36127563
PMCPMC10615987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.