An Optimal Choice of Cognitive Diagnostic Model for Second Language Listening Comprehension Test

Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Cognitive diagnostic models show great promise in language assessment for providing rich diagnostic information. The lack of a full understanding of second language listening subskills made model selection difficult. In search of optimal CDM that could provide a better understanding of L2 listening subskills and facilitate accurate classification, this study carried a two-layer model selection. At the test level, A-CDM, LLM, and R-RUM had an acceptable and comparable model fit, suggesting mixed inter-attribute relationships of L2 listening subskills. At the item level, Mixed-CDMs were selected and confirmed the existence of mixed relationships. Mixed-CDMs had better model and person fit than G-DNIA. In addition to statistical approaches, the content analysis provided theoretical evidence to confirm and amend the item-level CDMs. It was found that semantic completeness pertaining to the attributes and item features may influence the attribute relationships. Inexplicable attribute conflicts could be a signal of suboptimal model choice. Sample size and the number of multi-attribute items should be taken into account in L2 listening cognitive diagnostic modeling studies. This study provides useful insights into the model selection and the underlying cognitive process for L2 listening tests.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,438

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Joint attention to music.Tom Cochrane - 2009 - British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (1):59-73.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-17

Downloads
89 (#188,383)

6 months
85 (#51,879)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Communicative Syllabus Design.J. Munby - 1980 - British Journal of Educational Studies 28 (2):155-157.

Add more references