Retrofitting Non-cognitive-diagnostic Reading Assessment Under the Generalized DINA Model Framework

References

• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical identification model. IEEE Transactions on Automated Control, 19, 716–723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. C., & Huhta, A. (2011). Can research into the diagnostic testing of reading in a second or foreign language contribute to SLA research? EUROSLA Yearbook, 11, 30–52. doi:10.1075/eurosla.11
   Google Scholar
• Alderson, J. C., & Lukmani, Y. (1989). Cognition and reading: Cognitive levels as embodied in test questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 253–270.
   Google Scholar
• Buck, G., Tatsuoka, K., & Kostin, I. (1997). The subskills of reading: Rule-space analysis of a multiple-choice test of second language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 47, 423–466. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H., & Chen, J. (2013). Validating G-DINA model in language test diagnosis. Journal of Psychological Science [Chinese], 36, 1470–1475.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J., & de la Torre, J. (2013). A general cognitive diagnosis model for expert-defined polytomous attributes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 419–437. doi:10.1177/0146621613479818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J., de la Torre, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Relative and absolute fit evaluation in cognitive diagnosis modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 123–140. doi:10.1111/jedm.2013.50.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 499–545. doi:10.2307/747153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179–199. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9207-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre, J., & Chen, J. (2011). Estimating different reduced cognitive diagnosis models using a general framework. Paper presented at the anuual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• DiBello, L., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (2007). Cognitive diagnosis Part I. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (Vol. 26): Psychometrics (pp. 979–1030). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, J., de la Torre, J., Chang, H., Henson, R., & Templin, J. (2006). Skills diagnosis with latent variable models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Firman, H. (2012). Diagnosing weaknesses of Indonesian students’ learning on the basis of PISA 2012 Survey Results. A paper presented at PISA 2012 Symposium, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 333–352. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1989.tb00336.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartz, S. (2002). A Bayesian Framework for the Unified Model for Assessing Cognitive Abilities: Blending Theory with Practicality ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Hartz, S., & Roussos, L. (2008). The fusion model for skills diagnosis: Blending theory with practice (ETS research report. no. RR-08-71). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Heaton, J. B. (1991). Writing English language test. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Henson, R. A., Templin, J., & Willse, J. (2009). Defining a family of cognitive diagnosis models using log-linear models with latent variables. Psychometrika, 74, 191–210. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9089-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jang, E. E. (2009). Cognitive diagnostic assessment of L2 reading comprehension ability: Validity arguments for fusion model application to LanguEdge assessment. Language Testing, 26, 031–073. doi:10.1177/0265532208097336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with non-parametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258–272. doi:10.1177/01466210122032064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A. H. (2015). Exploring ways to provide diagnostic feedback with an ESL placement test: Cognitive diagnostic assessment of L2 reading ability. Language Testing, 2015(32), 227–258. doi:10.1177/0265532214558457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirsch, I., & Mosenthal, P. B. (1990). Exploring document literacy: Variables underlying the performance of young adults. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 5–30. doi:10.2307/747985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunina-Habenicht, O., Rupp, A. A., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). The impact of model misspecification on parameter estimation and item-fit assessment in log-linear diagnostic classification models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 49(1), 59–81. doi:10.1111/jedm.2012.49.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., & Sawaki, Y. (2009a). Cognitive diagnosis approaches to language assessment: An overview. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 172–189. doi:10.1080/15434300902985108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., & Sawaki, Y. (2009b). Application of three cognitive diagnosis models to ESL reading and listening assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 239–263. doi:10.1080/15434300903079562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. (2007). Verbal reports as data for cognitive diagnostic assessment. In J. P. Leighton, & M. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 146–172). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leighton, J. P., Gierl, M. J., & Hunka, S. M. (2004). The attribute hierarchy model for cognitive assessment: A variation on Tatsuoka’s rule-space approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 205–237. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2004.tb01163.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumley, T., Mendelovits, J., Searle, D., Alderson, J. C., De Jong, J., Kirsch, I., & Lafontaine, D. (2009). How can we predict difficulty in PISA reading items? The process of describing item difficulty. Paper presented at PISA Research Conference, Kiel, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Lunzer, E., Waite, M., & Dolan, T. (1979). Comprehension and comprehension tests. In E. Lunzer & K. Gardner (Eds.), The effective use of reading (pp. 37–71). London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books.
   Google Scholar
• Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64, 187–212. doi:10.1007/BF02294535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munby, J. L. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2000). Database - PISA 2000. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://pisa2000.acer.edu.au/
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris, France: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2004). What makes school systems perform? Seeing school systems through the Prism of PISA. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2006a). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2006b). PISA released items: Reading. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/38709396.pdf
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2013). Lessons from PISA 2012 for the United States, strong performers and successful reformers in education. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513–536. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer, G. (1976). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345–354. doi:10.1111/jedm.1983.20.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287–305. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.3.287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287–307. doi:10.1348/000711007X193957
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C., & Gierl, M. J. (2011). Using the attribute hierarchy method to make diagnostic inferences about examinees’ cognitive skills in critical reading. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48, 165–187. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2011.00142.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir, C. J., & Porter, D. (1994). The multi-divisible or unitary nature of reading: The language tester between Scylla and Charybdis. Reading in a Foreign Language, 10, 1–19.
   Google Scholar