Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-zxcqg Total loading time: 0.31 Render date: 2021-10-28T03:26:57.367Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

1 - Why Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

Jacqueline P. Leighton
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta
Mark J. Gierl
Affiliation:
Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta
Jacqueline Leighton
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Mark Gierl
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Summary

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.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education
Theory and Applications
, pp. 3 - 18
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anastasi, A. (1967). Psychology, psychologists, and psychological testing. American Psychologist, 22, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Embretson (Whitley), S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.Google Scholar
Embretson, S., & Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 343–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M. G. (Eds.). (1990). Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Healy, A. F. (Ed.). (2005). Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, S. H., & Kyllonen, P. C. (2002). Item generation for test development. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694 (Monograph Suppl. 9).Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 1–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–67.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nichols, P. (1994). A framework for developing cognitively diagnostic assessments. Review of Educational Research, 64, 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F., & Brennan, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences. Intelligence, 3, 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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 http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testingforresults.html
28
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×