Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications

By Andre A. Rupp, Jonathan Templin, Robert Henson. 2010

611 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/36963f1e2c28b502d8ceaafa2a08ccc7ece1025c

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

An Application of M2 Statistic to Evaluate the Fit of Cognitive Diagnostic Models (2016, background): “Although alternatives to w(2) and G(2) have been proposed to assess testlevel fit (Rupp et al., 2010), much work remains to be done.”
Diagnosing Teachers’ Understandings of Rational Numbers: Building a Multidimensional Test Within the Diagnostic Classification Framework (2014, methodology): “For these structural models, nonsignificant higher order interaction terms negligibly influence attribute relationships and do not need to be estimated (Rupp et al., 2010; Xu & von Davier, 2008).”
On the Estimation of Standard Errors in Cognitive Diagnosis Models (2018, background): “Different models can be assumed to reduce the number of parameters (de la Torre & Douglas, 2004; Rupp et al., 2010).”
Identifiability of restricted latent class models with binary responses (2016, methodology): “Under the reduced version of the Reparameterized Uniﬁed Model (Reduced RUM, see DiBello et al., 1995; Rupp et al., 2010), we have where π j is the positive response probability for subjects who possess all required attributes and r j,k , 0 < r j,k < 1 , is the penalty parameter for not possessing…”
The Impact of Model Misspecification on Parameter Estimation and Item‐Fit Assessment in Log‐Linear Diagnostic Classification Models (2012, methodology): “The log-linear model framework is a general model specification and estimation framework that allows practitioners to specify core diagnostic classification models from the literature (Henson et al., 2009; Rupp et al., 2010).”
Item Response Theory—A Statistical Framework for Educational and Psychological Measurement (2021, unknown): “DCMs have received much recent attention in educational assessment, psychiatric evaluation, and many other disciplines (Rupp et al., 2010; von Davier and Lee, 2019).”