The choice between cognitive diagnosis and item response theory: A case study from medical education

Abstract

Feedback is a powerful instructional tool for motivating learning. But effective feedback, requires that instructors have accurate information about their students’ current knowledge status and their learning progress. In modern educational measurement, two major theoretical perspectives on student ability and proficiency can be distinguished. Latent trait models identify ability as a continuous uni- or multi-dimensional construct, with unidimensional item response theoretic (IRT) models presumably the most popular type of latent trait models. They report a single ability score that allows for locating examinees relative to their peers on the latent ability dimension targeted by the test. Latent trait models have been criticized for lacking diagnostic information on students’ specific skills, their strengths and weaknesses in a knowledge domain. Cognitive diagnosis (CD) models, in contrast, describe ability as a combination of discrete skills (called “attributes”) that constitute (partially) ordered latent classes of proficiency. The focus of CD is on collecting information about the learning progress for immediate feedback to students in terms of skills they have mastered and those needing study. CD has been underused in education; performance assessment still mostly relies on latent-trait-based methods. The motivation for the study reported here arose from the desire to conduct a side-by-side evaluation of the two seemingly disparate psychometric frameworks, CD and IRT. Data from a biochemistry end-of-term exam were used for illustration. They were fitted with multiple CD and IRT models, among them also HO-GDINA models that permit for a close approximation to several unidimensional IRT models.

Keywords:

• Cognitive diagnosis
• feedback
• formative assessment
• HO-GDINA
• IRT

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).