The Attribute Hierarchy Method for Cognitive Assessment: A Variation on Tatsuoka's Rule-Space Approach

By Jacqueline P. Leighton, Mark J. Gierl, S. Hunka. 2004

400 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2407905643e6906f4f15f3cffd842b29b33d3068

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

1. Gongjun Xu
2. Changjiang Wang
3. Jiawen Zhou
4. Jimmy de la Torre
5. Yasuyo Sawaki
6. Yong-Won Lee
7. Mark J. Gierl
8. Chia-Yi Chiu

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Gongjun Xu
2. Nathan Minchen
3. Changjiang Wang
4. Jiawen Zhou
5. Jimmy de la Torre
6. Yasuyo Sawaki
7. Yong-Won Lee
8. Mark J. Gierl

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Gongjun Xu
2. Nathan Minchen
3. Mark J. Gierl
4. Jimmy de la Torre
5. Yong-Won Lee
6. Changjiang Wang
7. Jiawen Zhou
8. Yasuyo Sawaki

Citations in the corpus

• Using the Attribute Hierarchy Method to Make Diagnostic Inferences about Examinees' Cognitive Skills in Algebra on the SAT. (2008, methodology): “Examples of the adjacency, reachability, reduced incidence, and expected response matrices, as they apply to different types of cognitive models, can be found in Gierl, Leighton, and Hunka (2000, 2007) and Leighton et al. (2004).”
• Identifiability of restricted latent class models with binary responses (2016, methodology): “…and NIDO (Noisy Inputs, Deterministic ‘Or’ gate) (Templin and Henson, 2006), the rule space method (Tatsuoka, 1983, 2009), the attribute hierarchy method (Leighton, Gierl, and Hunka, 2004), the Generalized DINA models (de la Torre, 2011), and the general diagnostic model (von Davier, 2008); see…”
• Cognitive Diagnosis Approaches to Language Assessment: An Overview (2009, background): “In defining attributes, one can seek guidance from various relevant sources, such as test specifications, content domain theories, analysis of item content, think-aloud protocol analysis of examinees’ test-taking process, and other relevant research results (Buck & Tatsuoka, 1998; Leighton & Gierl, ”
• Cognitively Diagnostic Assessments and the Cognitive Diagnosis Model Framework (2014, background): “Leighton, Gierl, and Hunka (2004) noted that there were only a few specific exceptions when misclassification of examinees does not occur, one of which is when the attributes have a linear hierarchical attribute structure because the presence of each additional attribute can be mapped onto a…”
• The Generalized DINA Model Framework. (2011, background): “This joint distribution can also be simplified by imposing structures on the attributes (e.g., Leighton, Gierl, & Hunka, 2004 ) to reduce the number of attribute vectors to be considered.”