These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29962994)
1. Probabilistic-Input, Noisy Conjunctive Models for Cognitive Diagnosis. Zhan P; Wang WC; Jiao H; Bian Y Front Psychol; 2018; 9():997. PubMed ID: 29962994 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The accuracy and consistency of mastery for each content domain using the Rasch and deterministic inputs, noisy “and” gate diagnostic classification models: a simulation study and a real-world analysis using data from the Korean Medical Licensing Examination. Seo DG; Kim JK J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2021; 18():15. PubMed ID: 34225413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Efficient Models for Cognitive Diagnosis With Continuous and Mixed-Type Latent Variables. Hong H; Wang C; Lim YS; Douglas J Appl Psychol Meas; 2015 Jan; 39(1):31-43. PubMed ID: 29880992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimation approaches in cognitive diagnosis modeling when attributes are hierarchically structured. Akbay L; de la Torre J Psicothema; 2020 Feb; 32(1):122-129. PubMed ID: 31954425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Estimation of item parameters and examinees' mastery probability in each domain of the Korean medical licensing examination using deterministic inputs, noisy and gate(DINA) model. Choi Y; Seo DG J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2020; 17():35. PubMed ID: 33197992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Examining Parameter Invariance in a General Diagnostic Classification Model. Ravand H; Baghaei P; Doebler P Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2930. PubMed ID: 31998189 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cognitive diagnosis modelling incorporating item response times. Zhan P; Jiao H; Liao D Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2018 May; 71(2):262-286. PubMed ID: 28872185 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bayesian Estimation of the DINA Q matrix. Chen Y; Culpepper SA; Chen Y; Douglas J Psychometrika; 2018 Mar; 83(1):89-108. PubMed ID: 28861685 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An Empirical Q-Matrix Validation Method for the Polytomous G-DINA Model. de la Torre J; Qiu XL; Santos KC Psychometrika; 2022 Jun; 87(2):693-724. PubMed ID: 34843060 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cognitive diagnostic assessment with different weight for attribute: based on the Dina model. Guo L; Bao Y; Wang Z; Bian Y Psychol Rep; 2014 Jun; 114(3):802-22. PubMed ID: 25074303 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Utilizing response times in cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing under the higher-order deterministic input, noisy 'and' gate model. Huang HY Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2020 Feb; 73(1):109-141. PubMed ID: 30793768 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Modified Cognitive Diagnostic Index and Modified Attribute-Level Discrimination Index for Test Construction. Kuo BC; Pai HS; de la Torre J Appl Psychol Meas; 2016 Jul; 40(5):315-330. PubMed ID: 29881056 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sample Size Requirements for Applying Diagnostic Classification Models. Sen S; Cohen AS Front Psychol; 2020; 11():621251. PubMed ID: 33569029 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Multilevel Modeling of Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment: The Multilevel DINA Example. Wang WC; Qiu XL Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Jan; 43(1):34-50. PubMed ID: 30573933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A Sequential Higher Order Latent Structural Model for Hierarchical Attributes in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessments. Zhan P; Ma W; Jiao H; Ding S Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jan; 44(1):65-83. PubMed ID: 31853159 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Applying the Chen F; Liu Y; Xin T; Cui Y Front Psychol; 2018; 9():1875. PubMed ID: 30356781 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bayesian DINA Modeling Incorporating Within-Item Characteristic Dependency. Zhan P; Jiao H; Liao M; Bian Y Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Mar; 43(2):143-158. PubMed ID: 30792561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A Sequential Process Model for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment With Repeated Attempts. Hung SP; Huang HY Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Oct; 43(7):495-511. PubMed ID: 31534286 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Potential for Interpretational Confounding in Cognitive Diagnosis Models. Huang QH; Bolt DM Appl Psychol Meas; 2022 Jun; 46(4):303-320. PubMed ID: 35601265 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Developing a Learning Progression for Probability Based on the GDINA Model in China. Bai S Front Psychol; 2020; 11():569852. PubMed ID: 33071899 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]