Wang Wenyi, Song Lihong, Ding Shuliang, Meng Yaru, Cao Canxi, Jie Yongjing
Jiangxi Normal University, Jiangxi, China.
Xi'an Jiaotong University, Shaanxi, China.
Appl Psychol Meas. 2018 Sep;42(6):446-459. doi: 10.1177/0146621617752991. Epub 2018 Feb 20.
With the purpose to assist the subject matter experts in specifying their Q-matrices, the authors used expectation-maximization (EM)-based algorithm to investigate three alternative Q-matrix validation methods, namely, the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), the marginal maximum likelihood estimation (MMLE), and the intersection and difference (ID) method. Their efficiency was compared, respectively, with that of the sequential EM-based δ method and its extension (ς), the γ method, and the nonparametric method in terms of correct recovery rate, true negative rate, and true positive rate under the deterministic-inputs, noisy "and" gate (DINA) model and the reduced reparameterized unified model (rRUM). Simulation results showed that for the rRUM, the MLE performed better for low-quality tests, whereas the MMLE worked better for high-quality tests. For the DINA model, the ID method tended to produce better quality Q-matrix estimates than other methods for large sample sizes (i.e., 500 or 1,000). In addition, the Q-matrix was more precisely estimated under the discrete uniform distribution than under the multivariate normal threshold model for all the above methods. On average, the ς and ID method with higher true negative rates are better for correcting misspecified Q-entries, whereas the MLE with higher true positive rates is better for retaining the correct Q-entries. Experiment results on real data set confirmed the effectiveness of the MLE.
为了帮助主题专家确定他们的Q矩阵,作者使用基于期望最大化(EM)的算法研究了三种替代的Q矩阵验证方法,即最大似然估计(MLE)、边际最大似然估计(MMLE)和交集与差集(ID)方法。在确定性输入、噪声“与”门(DINA)模型和简化重新参数化统一模型(rRUM)下,分别将它们的效率与基于顺序EM的δ方法及其扩展(ς)、γ方法和非参数方法在正确恢复率、真阴性率和真阳性率方面进行了比较。模拟结果表明,对于rRUM,MLE在低质量测试中表现更好,而MMLE在高质量测试中效果更佳。对于DINA模型,在大样本量(即500或1000)时,ID方法往往比其他方法能产生质量更好的Q矩阵估计。此外,对于上述所有方法,在离散均匀分布下比在多元正态阈值模型下能更精确地估计Q矩阵。平均而言,真阴性率较高的ς和ID方法在纠正错误指定的Q条目方面表现更好,而真阳性率较高的MLE在保留正确的Q条目方面表现更佳。在真实数据集上的实验结果证实了MLE的有效性。