MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1842811255

Using the Attribute Hierarchy Method to Make Diagnostic Inferences about Examinees' Cognitive Skills in Algebra on the SAT.

2008· article· en· W1842811255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Journals at BC (Boston College) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)CognitionComputer scienceHierarchySample (material)Set (abstract data type)Cognitive modelNatural language processingThink aloud protocolTest (biology)SalientArtificial intelligencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionUsabilityProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to apply the attribute hierarchy method (AHM) to a sample of SAT algebra items administered in March 2005.The AHM is a psychometric method for classifying examinees' test item responses into a set of structured attribute patterns associated with different components from a cognitive model of task performance.An attribute is a description of the procedural or declarative knowledge needed to perform a task.These attributes form a hierarchy of cognitive skills that represent a cognitive model of task performance.The study was conducted in two steps.In step 1, a cognitive model was developed by having content specialists, first, review the SAT algebra items, identify their salient attributes, and order the item-based attributes into a hierarchy.Then, the cognitive model was validated by having a sample of students think aloud as they solved each item.In step 2, psychometric analyses were conducted on the SAT algebra cognitive model by evaluating the model-data fit between the expected response patterns generated by the cognitive model and the observed response patterns produced from a random sample of 5000 examinees who wrote the items.Attribute probabilities were also computed for this random sample of examinees so diagnostic inferences about their attribute-level performances could be made.We conclude the study by describing key limitations, highlighting challenges inherent to the development and analysis of cognitive diagnostic assessments, and proposing directions for future research. Note: This is a multimedia articleAll multimedia components are enclosed in blue.Acrobat Reader 8.0 and Acrobat Flash Player 9.0 or higher are required.These programs, which are free, can be accessed and installed from the Adobe website (www.adobe.com).This article contains "mouse-over" actions in Figure 1 to illustrate how the attributes are measured with sample algebra items from the SAT.This article also contains multimedia clips.We present the reader with three embedded videos in Figures 2 to 4 to illustrate how a student actually solves an item.Figures 5 to 10 contain embedded audio clips so the reader can hear how a student solves an item .These video and audio clips supplement our text descriptions of the attributes to provide the reader with more concrete examples about the cognitive skills that constitute each attribute and how attributes are hierarchically related.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it