The Generalized DINA Model Framework.

By Jimmy de la Torre. 2011

679 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2997cd49fe4df0ff39486c394679cce79a4d2d7e

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Chia-Yi Chiu
2. Gongjun Xu
3. Nathan Minchen
4. Wei Tian
5. Yanlou Liu
6. Tao Xin
7. Michel Philipp
8. Achim Zeileis

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Chia-Yi Chiu
2. Gongjun Xu
3. Wei Tian
4. Yanlou Liu
5. Tao Xin
6. Achim Zeileis
7. Michel Philipp
8. Carolin Strobl

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Chia-Yi Chiu
2. Gongjun Xu
3. Wei Tian
4. Yanlou Liu
5. Tao Xin
6. Achim Zeileis
7. Michel Philipp
8. Carolin Strobl

Citations in the corpus

• Analysis of Clinical Data From a Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling Framework (2018, background): “The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) maintained a categorical classification of separate mental disorders, although they recognize the problematically high comorbidity patterns between categories. Mental ”
• A Cognitive Diagnostic Modeling of Attribute Mastery in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and the U.S. National Sample Using the TIMSS 2007 (2011, neutral): “For example, the generalized DINA ( de la Torre, in press ) model, the general diagnostic model ( von Davier, 2005 ), and the loglinear cognitive diagnostic model ( Burke & Henson, 2008 ; Henson, Templin, & Willse, 2009 ) demonstrate this trend in the literature.”
• Identifiability of restricted latent class models with binary responses (2016, methodology): “de la Torre, J. (2011), “The generalized DINA model framework,” Psychometrika, 76, 179–199.”
• An Application of M2 Statistic to Evaluate the Fit of Cognitive Diagnostic Models (2016, methodology): “This data set has been a commonly used example in cognitive diagnosis literature (e.g., DeCarlo, 2010; de la Torre, 2009, 2011; de la Torre & Douglas, 2008; Henson et al., 2009).”
• Item Response Theory—A Statistical Framework for Educational and Psychological Measurement (2021, neutral): “All these DCMs can be viewed as special cases of a general diagnostic classification model (de la Torre, 2011; Henson et al., 2009; von Davier, 2008), where the IRF takes the general form containing all the inter-imsart-sts ver.”
• Statistical Refinement of the Q-Matrix in Cognitive Diagnosis (2013, methodology): “Accordingly, de la Torre and Chiu (2010) proposed another item discrimination index, §2j , to be used for Q-matrix validation when the observed item responses conform to the Generalized DINA (G-DINA) model (de la Torre, 2011).”
• On the Estimation of Standard Errors in Cognitive Diagnosis Models (2018, methodology): “Many of these models can be subsumed within a more general framework, such as the generalized deterministic input, noisy “and” gate (G-DINA; de la Torre, 2011) model, the log-linear CDM (Henson, Templin, & Willse, 2009), or the general diagnostic model (von Davier, 2008).”
• Cognitively Diagnostic Assessments and the Cognitive Diagnosis Model Framework (2014, methodology): “If all interaction effects are constrained to be 0, the additive CDM (A-CDM; de la Torre, 2011) is obtained: (6) .”