Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:52:04.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Parameter Invariance in the BLIM: Bipartition Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Debora de Chiusole ,
Luca Stefanutti ,
Pasquale Anselmi  and
Egidio Robusto
Debora de Chiusole*
Affiliation:
Fisppa Department, University of Padua
Luca Stefanutti
Affiliation:
Fisppa Department, University of Padua
Pasquale Anselmi
Affiliation:
Fisppa Department, University of Padua
Egidio Robusto
Affiliation:
Fisppa Department, University of Padua
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Debora de Chiusole, FISPPA Department, University of Padua, Via Venezia, 8, 35131, Padova, Italy. E-mail: deboratn@libero.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In knowledge space theory, the knowledge state of a student is the set of all problems he is capable of solving in a specific knowledge domain and a knowledge structure is the collection of knowledge states. The basic local independence model (BLIM) is a probabilistic model for knowledge structures. The BLIM assumes a probability distribution on the knowledge states and a lucky guess and a careless error probability for each problem. A key assumption of the BLIM is that the lucky guess and careless error probabilities do not depend on knowledge states (invariance assumption). This article proposes a method for testing the violations of this specific assumption. The proposed method was assessed in a simulation study and in an empirical application. The results show that (1) the invariance assumption might be violated by the empirical data even when the model’s fit is very good, and (2) the proposed method may prove to be a promising tool to detect invariance violations of the BLIM.

Keywords

basic local independence modelknowledge space theoryparameter invariance

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 710 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Petrov, B.N., & Csaki, F. (Eds.), Second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267281). Budapest: Academiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Albert, D., & Lukas, J. (Eds.) (1999). Knowledge spaces: theories, empirical research, and applications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, E.B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the rasch model. Psychometrika, 38(1), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolt, D. (2007). The present and future of IRT-based cognitive diagnostic models (ICDMs) and related methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(4), 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: a didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Torre, J., & Lee, Y.-S. (2010). A note on the invariance of the DINA model parameters. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(1), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiBello, L.V., & Stout, W. (2007). Guest editors’ introduction and overview: IRT-based cognitive diagnostic models and related methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(4), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doignon, J.-P. (1994). Knowledge spaces and skill assignments. In Fischer, G., & Laming, D. (Eds.), Contributions to mathematical psychology, psychometrics and methodology (pp. 111–121) New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1985). Spaces for the assessment of knowledge. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doignon, J.-P., & Falmagne, J.-C. (1999). Knowledge spaces. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (1988). A class of stochastic procedures for the assessment of knowledge. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 41, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (1988). A Markovian procedure for assessing the state of a system. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 232–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (2011). Learning spaces. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glas, C.A.W., & Verhelst, N.D. (1995). Testing the Rasch model. In Fischer, G.H., & Molenaar, I.W. (Eds.), Rasch models: foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Heller, J., & Wickelmaier, F. (2013, in preparation). Parameter estimation in probabilistic knowledge structures. Manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurvich, C.M., & Tsai, C. (1989). Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika, 76, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Korossy, K. (1999). Modeling knowledge as competence and performance. In Albert, D., & Lukas, J. (Eds.), Knowledge spaces: theories, empirical research, applications (pp. 103–132). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schrepp, M. (2005). About the connection between knowledge structures and latent class models. Methodology, 1, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanutti, L., Heller, J., Anselmi, P., & Robusto, E. (2012). Assessing the local identifiability of probabilistic knowledge structures. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1197–1211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stefanutti, L., & Robusto, E. (2009). Recovering a probabilistic knowledge structure by constraining its parameter space. Psychometrika, 74, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, C. (2002). Data-analytic methods for latent partially ordered classification models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C. Applied Statistics, 51, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. (1990). Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Safto, M. (Eds.), Monitoring skills and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453–488). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar