Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 21
  • Print publication year: 2007
  • Online publication date: November 2009

1 - Why Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment?


Cognitive diagnostic assessment (CDA) is designed to measure specific knowledge structures and processing skills in students so as to provide information about their cognitive strengths and weaknesses. CDA is still in its infancy, but its parentage is fairly well established. In 1989, two seminal chapters in Robert Linn's Educational Measurement signaled both the escalating interest in and the need for cognitive diagnostic assessment. Samuel Messick's chapter, “Validity”, and the late Richard Snow and David Lohman's chapter, “Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Educational Measurement”, helped solidify the courtship of cognitive psychology within educational measurement. The ideas expressed in these chapters attracted many young scholars to educational measurement and persuaded other, well-established scholars to consider the potential of a relatively innovative branch of psychology, namely, cognitive psychology, for informing test development.

CDA can be traced to the ideas expressed in the previously mentioned chapters and, of course, to the many other authors whose ideas, in turn, inspired Messick, Snow, and Lohman (e.g., Cronbach, 1957; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Embretson, 1983; Loevinger, 1957; Pellegrino & Glaser, 1979). Since 1989, other influential articles, chapters, and books have been written specifically about CDA (see Frederiksen, Glaser, Lesgold, & Shafto, 1990). Most notably, the article by Paul Nichols (1994) titled “A Framework for Developing Cognitively Diagnostic Assessments” and the book coedited by Paul Nichols, Susan Chipman, and Robert Brennan (1995) appropriately titled Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment.

Anastasi, A. (1967). Psychology, psychologists, and psychological testing. American Psychologist, 22, 297–306.
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 167–207.
Anderson, J. R., & Gluck, K. (2001). What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent tutoring systems? In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 227–261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Embretson (Whitley), S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.
Embretson, S., & Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 343–368.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M. G. (Eds.). (1990). Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Healy, A. F. (Ed.). (2005). Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Irvine, S. H., & Kyllonen, P. C. (2002). Item generation for test development. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.
Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (in press). Defining and evaluating models of cognition used in educational measurement to make inferences about examinees' thinking processes. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694 (Monograph Suppl. 9).
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 1–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Mislevy, R. J. (1993). Foundations of a new test theory. In Frederiksen, N., Mislevy, R. J., & Bejar, I. I. (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 19–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–67.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nichols, P. (1994). A framework for developing cognitively diagnostic assessments. Review of Educational Research, 64, 575–603.
Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F., & Brennan, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub.L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1435 (2002).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003.Paris:Author.
Peak, H. (1953). Problems of observation. In Festinger, L. & Katz, D. (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences (pp. 243–299). Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences. Intelligence, 3, 187–214.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 263–331). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Sternberg, R. J. (1984). What psychology can (and cannot) do for test development. In Plake, B. S. (Ed.), Social and technical issues in testing: Implications for test construction and usage (pp. 39–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, September 16). Stronger accountability: Testing for results: Helping families, schools, and communities understand and improve student achievement. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from