ArticleThe British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology2025
A general diagnostic modelling framework for forced-choice assessments.
Article in The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Deep Learning-Based Latent Trait Model for Forced-Choice Personality Assessment.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Neural cognitive diagnosis modeling incorporating response times.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A general diagnostic modelling framework for forced-choice assessments.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic classification modelling (DCM) is a family of restricted latent class models often used in educational settings to assess students' strengths and weaknesses. Recently, there has been growing interest in applying DCM to noncognitive traits in fields such as clinical and organizational psychology, as well as personality profiling. To address common response biases in these assessments, such as social desirability, Huang (2023, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 83, 146) adopted the forced-choice (FC) item format within the DCM framework, developing the FC-DCM. This model assumes that examinees with no clear preference for any statements in an FC block will choose completely at random. Additionally, the unique parametrization of the FC-DCM poses challenges for integration with established DCM frameworks in the literature. In the present study, we enhance the capabilities of DCM by introducing a general diagnostic framework for FC assessments. We present an adaptation of the G-DINA model to accommodate FC responses. Simulation results show that the G-DINA model provides accurate classifications, item parameter estimates and attribute correlations, outperforming the FC-DCM in realistic scenarios where item discrimination varies. A real FC assessment example further illustrates the better model fit of the G-DINA. Practical recommendations for using the FC format in diagnostic assessments of noncognitive traits are provided.
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.