Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:52:15.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovering a Probabilistic Knowledge Structure by Constraining its Parameter Space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Luca Stefanutti  and
Egidio Robusto
Luca Stefanutti*
Affiliation:
University of Padua
Egidio Robusto
Affiliation:
University of Padua
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Luca Stefanutti, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. E-mail: luca.stefanutti@unipd.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Basic Local Independence Model (BLIM) of Doignon and Falmagne (Knowledge Spaces, Springer, Berlin, 1999), the probabilistic relationship between the latent knowledge states and the observable response patterns is established by the introduction of a pair of parameters for each of the problems: a lucky guess probability and a careless error probability. In estimating the parameters of the BLIM with an empirical data set, it is desirable that such probabilities remain reasonably small. A special case of the BLIM is proposed where the parameter space of such probabilities is constrained. A simulation study shows that the constrained BLIM is more effective than the unconstrained one, in recovering a probabilistic knowledge structure.

Keywords

probabilistic knowledge structuresbasic local independence modelconstrained parameter estimation
Type
Theory and Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 83 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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.)

References

Albert, D. (1994). Knowledge structures, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, D., Lukas, J. (1999). Knowledge spaces: theories, empirical research, applications, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsekas, D. (1996). Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods, Belmont: Athena Scientific.Google Scholar
Dempster, A., Laird, N., Rubin, D. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1), 1–38.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, Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falmagne, J.-C., Doignon, J.-P. (1988). A class of stochastic procedures for the assessment of knowledge. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falmagne, J.C., Doignon, J.P., Koppen, M., Villano, M., Johannesen, L. (1990). Introduction to knowledge spaces: how to build, search and test them. Psychological Review, 97(2), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberman, S. (1979). Qualitative data analysis (Vols. 1, 2), New-York: Academic.Google Scholar
Houseman, E., Coull, B., Betensky, R. (2006). Feature-specific penalized latent class analysis for genomic data. Biometrics, 62(4), 1062–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junker, B.W. (2001). On the interplay between nonparametric and parametric irt, with some thoughts about the future. In Boomsma, A., Duijn, M.A.J.V., Snijders, T.A.B. (Eds.), Essays on item response theory (pp. 274–276). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Junker, B., Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langeheine, R., Pannekoek, J., van de Pol, F. (1996). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in categorical data analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 24, 492–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macready, G.B., Dayton, C.M. (1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(2), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64(2), 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrepp, M. (1997). A generalization of knowledge space theory to problems with more than two answer alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(3), 237–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Davier, M. (1997). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse categorical data: results of a Monte Carlo study. Methods of Psychological Research, 2(2), 29–48.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1997). Primal-dual interior-point methods, Philadelphia: SIAM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar