logo


1. Simulation Study Design


The purpose of this simulation study is to explore the relationships between parameters estimated from cognitive diagnostic models (CDM) and ones from item response theory models (IRT). Among the CDMs, this study focused on DINA and NIDA models with items that involve one single skill per item (see the Q matrix below). We generated learner response data using the following true values. The simulated data by DINA and NIDA were analyzed by one of the IRT models, Rasch, to estimate item difficulty and learner skill values.

Learner Skill Mastery

200 learners x 5 skills
Learner Skill1 Skill2 Skill3 Skill4 Skill5 Total # of Skills
1 1 0 1 0 0 2
2 0 0 1 1 0 2
3 1 0 1 1 1 4
4 1 1 0 1 0 3
5 1 0 0 0 0 1
6 1 0 1 1 1 4
7 1 1 1 0 0 3
8 1 1 1 0 0 3
9 1 1 1 1 0 4
10 1 1 1 1 1 5
11 1 1 1 0 0 3
12 0 0 1 1 0 2
13 1 0 1 0 1 3
14 1 0 1 1 0 3
15 0 0 1 1 0 2
16 1 0 0 1 1 3
17 1 1 1 1 0 4
18 1 0 1 1 0 3
19 1 0 1 1 1 4
20 0 0 1 0 0 1
21 1 0 1 0 0 2
22 1 0 1 1 1 4
23 1 0 1 1 1 4
24 1 1 1 1 0 4
25 0 1 1 0 0 2
26 1 0 1 1 0 3
27 1 0 1 1 0 3
28 1 0 1 1 1 4
29 1 0 1 1 0 3
30 0 0 1 1 1 3
31 0 0 1 0 0 1
32 1 1 1 1 0 4
33 0 0 1 0 1 2
34 1 0 1 1 0 3
35 1 1 1 1 0 4
36 0 1 1 0 1 3
37 1 1 1 0 0 3
38 0 0 1 1 1 3
39 1 1 1 0 0 3
40 1 1 1 1 0 4
41 1 0 1 1 0 3
42 0 1 0 1 1 3
43 1 0 1 1 0 3
44 1 0 0 1 0 2
45 1 1 1 1 0 4
46 1 1 1 1 0 4
47 1 1 1 1 0 4
48 1 1 1 1 0 4
49 1 0 0 0 0 1
50 1 1 1 1 1 5
51 1 1 1 0 0 3
52 1 1 1 0 0 3
53 1 0 0 1 0 2
54 0 0 1 1 0 2
55 1 0 1 1 0 3
56 0 0 0 0 1 1
57 0 1 1 1 1 4
58 1 1 1 1 1 5
59 0 0 1 0 1 2
60 0 0 1 1 0 2
61 1 0 1 1 0 3
62 1 1 1 1 0 4
63 1 0 1 1 0 3
64 0 1 1 0 0 2
65 0 0 1 0 1 2
66 1 0 1 0 0 2
67 1 0 1 0 0 2
68 0 1 1 1 0 3
69 1 0 1 1 0 3
70 0 1 1 1 1 4
71 0 0 1 0 0 1
72 1 1 1 1 0 4
73 1 1 1 1 0 4
74 0 1 1 1 0 3
75 0 1 1 0 1 3
76 1 0 1 1 1 4
77 0 0 1 0 1 2
78 0 1 1 1 1 4
79 1 0 1 1 1 4
80 0 0 1 0 0 1
81 1 1 1 1 1 5
82 1 1 1 0 1 4
83 1 0 1 0 1 3
84 0 1 1 1 0 3
85 0 1 0 1 1 3
86 1 0 1 1 0 3
87 0 0 1 0 0 1
88 1 0 1 1 1 4
89 1 0 1 1 0 3
90 1 1 1 1 0 4
91 1 1 1 1 0 4
92 1 1 1 1 0 4
93 1 0 1 1 0 3
94 1 0 1 1 1 4
95 1 0 1 0 0 2
96 1 0 1 1 0 3
97 0 1 1 0 0 2
98 1 0 1 0 1 3
99 1 1 1 0 1 4
100 1 1 1 0 1 4
101 1 1 0 1 0 3
102 1 0 1 1 0 3
103 1 0 1 1 1 4
104 1 0 1 1 1 4
105 1 1 1 1 1 5
106 1 0 1 0 1 3
107 1 1 1 0 0 3
108 1 0 1 0 0 2
109 1 1 1 0 1 4
110 1 0 1 0 0 2
111 1 0 1 1 0 3
112 1 1 0 1 0 3
113 0 1 1 0 1 3
114 1 0 1 1 0 3
115 1 0 1 1 0 3
116 1 0 1 1 1 4
117 1 1 0 1 0 3
118 0 0 1 1 1 3
119 1 0 1 1 0 3
120 1 0 1 1 0 3
121 1 0 1 1 1 4
122 0 0 1 1 0 2
123 0 1 1 0 0 2
124 1 1 1 0 1 4
125 1 0 0 1 0 2
126 1 0 1 1 0 3
127 1 1 1 1 1 5
128 1 1 0 1 1 4
129 1 0 1 0 0 2
130 1 0 1 1 0 3
131 1 0 1 0 0 2
132 1 1 1 1 0 4
133 0 1 1 0 1 3
134 1 1 1 1 0 4
135 1 1 0 1 0 3
136 1 0 1 0 0 2
137 1 0 1 1 1 4
138 1 1 1 1 1 5
139 1 0 1 1 0 3
140 1 0 1 1 1 4
141 1 1 1 1 1 5
142 1 1 1 0 1 4
143 1 0 1 1 1 4
144 0 0 1 0 0 1
145 1 1 0 0 0 2
146 1 0 1 1 0 3
147 1 0 1 1 1 4
148 1 0 1 0 0 2
149 1 0 1 1 0 3
150 0 1 1 1 0 3
151 1 0 1 1 0 3
152 1 1 1 0 1 4
153 0 0 1 0 1 2
154 0 1 0 1 0 2
155 1 0 1 0 0 2
156 1 1 1 0 0 3
157 1 0 1 1 0 3
158 0 0 1 0 1 2
159 1 1 1 0 0 3
160 1 0 1 1 1 4
161 1 0 1 0 0 2
162 0 1 1 0 0 2
163 1 0 1 1 0 3
164 1 1 1 0 0 3
165 1 0 1 0 1 3
166 1 1 1 0 0 3
167 0 1 1 1 1 4
168 1 1 1 1 1 5
169 1 0 0 0 0 1
170 1 0 1 1 0 3
171 1 1 1 1 1 5
172 1 1 0 0 0 2
173 1 1 1 0 1 4
174 1 1 0 1 0 3
175 0 1 1 1 0 3
176 1 1 1 1 0 4
177 1 1 1 1 0 4
178 1 0 1 1 0 3
179 0 0 1 0 0 1
180 1 1 1 0 0 3
181 1 0 1 1 0 3
182 1 1 1 1 0 4
183 1 0 1 1 0 3
184 1 0 1 0 0 2
185 1 0 1 1 0 3
186 1 1 1 1 0 4
187 1 1 0 0 0 2
188 0 1 1 0 0 2
189 1 0 0 1 0 2
190 1 0 1 1 1 4
191 1 0 1 0 0 2
192 1 0 1 0 0 2
193 0 0 1 1 1 3
194 0 1 1 0 0 2
195 1 0 0 0 0 1
196 1 0 1 0 0 2
197 0 1 1 1 0 3
198 0 0 1 1 0 2
199 1 1 1 1 0 4
200 0 1 1 0 0 2


Q Matrix (Item Skill Mapping)

30 items x 5 skills
Item Skill1 Skill2 Skill3 Skill4 Skill5
1 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0
3 0 0 1 0 0
4 0 0 0 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 1
6 0 0 0 1 0
7 0 0 1 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 1
9 1 0 0 0 0
10 0 1 0 0 0
11 1 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 1
13 0 0 1 0 0
14 0 0 0 1 0
15 0 1 0 0 0
16 0 0 1 0 0
17 0 1 0 0 0
18 1 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 1
20 0 0 0 1 0
21 0 1 0 0 0
22 1 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 1 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 1
25 0 0 0 1 0
26 0 0 0 0 1
27 0 0 1 0 0
28 0 1 0 0 0
29 0 0 0 1 0
30 1 0 0 0 0


DINA Item Parameters

30 items x 2 parameters
Item Hit (1 - Slip) Guess
1 0.6402064 0.0663373
2 0.7664291 0.1487147
3 0.8615828 0.0857883
4 0.6315809 0.2794831
5 0.6475758 0.2280644
6 0.7611137 0.2544553
7 0.7280119 0.1616461
8 0.6234309 0.0553341
9 0.8232062 0.1940295
10 0.6850177 0.2268624
11 0.9187429 0.1327583
12 0.8295276 0.2293021
13 0.8530992 0.0538474
14 0.6248707 0.0769292
15 0.8828779 0.0924592
16 0.6346501 0.2723798
17 0.8044818 0.1538909
18 0.8455635 0.2221435
19 0.8350879 0.2928427
20 0.6163942 0.1492838
21 0.8327854 0.0571125
22 0.7558969 0.2731436
23 0.6581821 0.1814247
24 0.7604780 0.1831064
25 0.7299039 0.1463419
26 0.9415226 0.2894229
27 0.6286622 0.1635177
28 0.6672417 0.0677156
29 0.6071370 0.2382317
30 0.7590172 0.1941605


NIDA Skill Parameters

5 skills x 2 parameters
Skill Hit (1 - Slip) Guess
Skill 1 0.95 0.25
Skill 2 0.70 0.10
Skill 3 0.85 0.25
Skill 4 0.80 0.10
Skill 5 0.60 0.10


Based on the true values (learner skill mastery (\(\alpha\)), Q matrix, Hit (\(h\)), and Guess (\(g\)) parameters, 20 sets of response data matrices were created using the DINA model described below. Each response data matrix was for 200 learners and 30 items.

The function of a correct item response under DINA is described as follows:
\[P_{ij} = h_{j}^{\eta_{ij}}g_{j}^{(1 - \eta_{ij})}\] \[\eta_{ij} = \prod_{k = 1}^{K} \alpha_{ik}^{q_{jk}}\]

\(\alpha_{ik}\): learner skill mastery per skill \(k\) by each learner \(i\)
\(h_{j}\): 1 - slip per item \(j\)
\(g_{j}\): guess per item \(j\)

Another 20 sets of response data matrices were created using the NIDA model for 200 learners and 30 items. The function of a correct item response under NIDA is described as follows:
\[P_{ij} = \prod_{k = 1}^{K} (h_{k}^{\alpha_{ik}}g_{k}^{(1 - \alpha_{ik})})^{q_{jk}}\]

\(\alpha_{ik}\): learner skill mastery per skill \(k\) by each learner \(i\)
\(h_{k}\): 1 - slip per skill \(k\)
\(g_{k}\): guess per skill \(k\)

2. Rasch Model Parameter Estimation


We applied the Rasch model to each response data matrix and calculated item difficulty and skill estimates. The average item difficulty and skill estimates from 20 data sets were calculated for the DINA and NIDA models, respectively.

The function of a correct item response under Rasch is described as follows:
\[P_{ij} = \frac{exp(\theta_{i} - \beta_{j})}{1 + exp(\theta_{i} - \beta_{j})}\]

\(\theta_{i}\): learner skill \(i\)
\(\beta_{j}\): item difficulty \(j\)


3. Parameter Comparison


As we calculated skill estimates by fitting the Rasch model to the DINA and NIDA simulated data, we compared these skill estimates with the true values that were used for simulating the DINA and NIDA response data. The comparison showed that the Rasch skill estimates from both DINA and NIDA simulated data were perfectly correlated with the true \(\alpha\) (skill mastery) values.


3.1. DINA vs. Rasch


We compared the Rasch item difficulty estimates with the true item hit \(h\) and guess \(g\) values that were used for simulating the DINA response data. We found that the Rasch item difficulty estimates from the DINA simulated data were negatively correlated with the item hit \(h\) parameters (\(\rho\) = -0.41), but the relationship with the item guess \(g\) parameters was weak (\(\rho\) = -0.1).


3.2. NIDA vs. Rasch


We compared the Rasch skill estimates with the true skill \(\alpha\) values that were used for simulating the NIDA response data. The NIDA skill mastery patterns that included Skill 5 (with the lowest hit \(h\) (the highest slip) parameter) and Skill 2 (with the second lowest hit \(h\) parameter) were related to lower Rasch skill estimates. The NIDA skill mastery patterns that included Skill 1 (with the highest hit \(h\) parameter) were related to higher Rasch skill estimates.

NIDA Skill Parameters vs. IRT Skill Estimates
NIDA Skill Mastery Pattern IRT Skill Estimates
0.0.0.0.1 -1.2693237
0.0.1.0.0 -1.1413860
1.0.0.0.0 -1.1343732
0.0.1.0.1 -0.7963927
0.1.0.1.0 -0.6212416
0.1.1.0.0 -0.6148298
0.0.1.1.0 -0.5826221
1.1.0.0.0 -0.5768498
1.0.1.0.0 -0.5566502
1.0.0.1.0 -0.4535163
0.1.1.0.1 -0.2223022
0.1.0.1.1 -0.1746597
1.0.1.0.1 -0.1604756
1.1.1.0.0 -0.0361790
0.0.1.1.1 -0.0333555
0.1.1.1.0 -0.0162578
1.1.0.1.0 0.0359713
1.0.0.1.1 0.0515063
1.0.1.1.0 0.0623549
1.1.1.0.1 0.3867322
0.1.1.1.1 0.4258707
1.0.1.1.1 0.5248952
1.1.1.1.0 0.6063866
1.1.0.1.1 0.6150383
1.1.1.1.1 1.0730383


4. Discussion


We could confirm that the IRT based skill estimates are aligned with the CDM based skill estimates when we analyze the same data using these two different models. We could also find relationships between the IRT parameters and the CDM hit \(h\) parameters (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2). However, it was not clear or easy to find any relationships between the Rasch parameters and the guess \(g\) parameters from both the DINA (item level) and NIDA (skill level) models. To explore further, we can fit either 2PL or 3PL IRT models to the simulated response data and compare the item discrimination parameters with the CDM guess parameters.