Diagnostic classification
models

A brief introduction

W. Jake Thompson, Ph.D.

Conceptual foundations

  • Traditional assessments and psychometric models measure an overall skill or ability
  • Assume a continuous latent trait

A normal distribution with team logos from the National Women's Soccer League overlayed.

Traditional methods

  • The output is a weak ordering of teams due to error in estimates
    • Confident Portland Thorns are the best
    • Not confident who is second best (OL Reign, North Carolina Courage, San Diego Wave)
  • Limited in the types of questions that can be answered.
    • Why is Kansas City so low?
    • What aspects are teams competent/proficient in?
    • How much skill is “enough” to pass?

Soccer example

  • Rather than measuring overall team strength, we can break soccer down into set of skills or attributes
    • Finishing
    • Possession
    • Defending
    • Goalkeeping

  • Attributes are categorical, often dichotomous (e.g., proficient vs. non-proficient)

Diagnostic classification models

  • DCMs place individuals into groups according to proficiency of multiple attributes
finishing possession defending goalkeeping
Xmark
Check
Xmark
Xmark
Check
Check
Check
Xmark
Check
Xmark
Xmark
Check
Check
Check
Check
Xmark

Answering more questions

  • Why is Kansas City so low?
    • Poor finishing, defending, and goalkeeping
  • What aspects are teams competent/proficient in?
    • DCMs provide classifications directly

Diagnostic psychometrics

  • Designed to be multidimensional
  • No continuum of student achievement
  • Categorical constructs
    • Usually binary (e.g., master/nonmaster, proficient/not proficient)
  • Several different names in the literature
    • Diagnostic classification models (DCMs)
    • Cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs)
    • Skills assessment models
    • Latent response models
    • Restricted latent class models

When are DCMs appropriate?

Success depends on:

  1. Domain definitions
    • What are the attributes we’re trying to measure?
    • Are the attributes measurable (e.g., with assessment items)?
  2. Alignment of purpose between assessment and model
    • Is classification the purpose?

Example applications

  • Educational measurement: The competencies that student is or is not proficient in
    • Latent knowledge, skills, or understandings
    • Used for tailored instruction and remediation
  • Psychiatric assessment: The DSM criteria that an individual meets
    • Broader diagnosis of a disorder

When are DCMs not appropriate?

  • When the goal is to place individuals on a scale

  • DCMs do not distinguish within classes


finishing possession defending goalkeeping
Check
Check
Check
Xmark
Check
Check
Check
Xmark

Conceptual foundation summary

  • DCMs are psychometric models designed to classify
    • We can define our attributes in any way that we choose
    • Items depend on the attribute definitions
    • Classifications are probabilistic
    • Takes fewer items to classify than to rank/scale
  • DCMs provide valuable information with more feasible data demands than other psychometric models
    • Higher reliability than IRT/MIRT models
    • Naturally accommodates multidimensionality
    • Complex item structures possible
    • Criterion-referenced interpretations
    • Alignment of assessment goals and psychometric model

Statistical foundations

Statistical foundation

  • Latent class models use responses to probabilistically place individuals into latent classes

  • DCMs are confirmatory latent class models

    • Latent classes specified a priori as attribute profiles
    • Q-matrx specifies item-attribute structure
    • Person parameters are attribute proficiency probabilities

Terminology

  • Respondents (r): The individuals from whom behavioral data are collected

    • For today, this is dichotomous assessment item responses
    • Not limited to only item responses in practice
  • Items (i): Assessment questions used to classify/diagnose respondents

  • Attributes (a): Unobserved latent categorical characteristics underlying the behaviors (i.e., diagnostic status)

    • Latent variables
  • Diagnostic Assessment: The method used to elicit behavioral data

Attribute profiles

  • With binary attributes, there are \(2^A\) possible profiles

  • Example 2-attribute assessment:

[0, 0]
[1, 0]
[0, 1]
[1, 1]

DCMs as latent class models

\[ \color{#D55E00}{P(X_r=x_r)} = \sum_{c=1}^C\color{#009E73}{\nu_c} \prod_{i=1}^I\color{#56B4E9}{\pi_{ic}^{x_{ir}}(1-\pi_{ic})^{1 - x_{ir}}} \]

Observed data: Probability of observing examinee r's item reponses
Structural component: Proportion of examinees in each class
Measurement component: Product of item response probabilities

Item response probabilities

  • Numerous DCMs have been developed over the years

  • Each DCM makes different assumptions about how attributes proficiencies combine/interact to produce an item response

Non-compensatory DCMs

  • Must be proficient in all attributes measured by the item to provide a correct response

  • Deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate (DINA; de la Torre & Douglas, 2004)

Compensatory DCMs

  • Must be proficient in at least 1 attribute measured by the item to provide a correct response

  • Deterministic inputs, noisy “or” gate (DINO; Templin & Henson, 2006)

General DCMs

  • Different response probabilities for each class (partially compensatory)

  • Log-linear cognitive diagnostic model (LCDM; Henson et al., 2009)

  • This will be our focus

Simple structure LCDM

Item measures only 1 attribute

\[ \text{logit}(X_i = 1) = \color{#D7263D}{\lambda_{i,0}} + \color{#219EBC}{\lambda_{i,1(1)}}\color{#009E73}{\alpha} \]

λi,0: Log-odds when not proficient
λi,1(1): Increase in log-odds when proficient
α: Attribute proficiency status (either 0 or 1)

Subscript notation



λi,e(α1)
  • i = The item to which the parameter belongs
  • e = The level of the effect
    • 0 = intercept
    • 1 = main effect
    • 2 = two-way interaction
    • 3 = three-way interaction
    • Etc.
  • \((\alpha_1,...)\) = The attributes to which the effect applies
    • The same number of attributes as listed in subscript 2

Complex structure LCDM

Item measures multiple attributes

\[ \text{logit}(X_i = 1) = \color{#D7263D}{\lambda_{i,0}} + \color{#4B3F72}{\lambda_{i,1(1)}\alpha_1} + \color{#9589BE}{\lambda_{i,1(2)}\alpha_2} + \color{#219EBC}{\lambda_{i,2(1,2)}\alpha_1\alpha_2} \]

Log-odds when proficient in neither attribute
Increase in log-odds when proficient in attribute 1
Increase in log-odds when proficient in attribute 2
Change in log-odds when proficient in both attributes

Defining DCM structures

  • Attribute and item relationships are defined in the Q-matrix

  • Q-matrix

    • I \(\times\) A matrix
    • 0 = Attribute is not measured by the item
    • 1 = Attribute is measured by the item

The LCDM as a general DCM

  • So called “general” DCM because the LCDM subsumes other DCMs

  • Constraints on item parameters make LCDM equivalent to other DCMs (e.g., DINA and DINO)

    • Interactive Shiny app: https://atlas-aai.shinyapps.io/dcm-probs/
    • DINA
      • Only the intercept and highest-order interaction are non-0
    • DINO
      • All main effects are equal
      • All two-way interactions are -1 \(\times\) main effect
      • All three-way interactions are -1 \(\times\) two-way interaction (i.e., equal to main effects)
      • Etc.

The rest of today


Diagnostic classification models

A brief introduction