建議

本節就本研究未盡完備之處，提出一些研究建議，供後續研究者參考。

一、本研究Q 矩陣為均勻分布平衡設計，也就是測量每個屬性的試題總數一致，

建議後續研究者可以探討Q 矩陣不平衡的設計，是否會影響診斷辨識率。

二、本研究只模擬整份測驗為6 個認知屬性的情況，建議後續研究者可以探討當 整份測驗測量的屬性數越多，是否會影響診斷辨識率。

三、本研究的試題反應函數為DINA 模式，建議後續研究者可以探討其他模式的 估計成效。

四、本研究為同一受試者在不同Q 矩陣下的診斷辨識率，建議後續研究者可以探 討不同受試者在同一個Q 矩陣設計下適性測驗診斷辨識率的成效。

五、本研究終止測驗的條件是以固定測驗長度為 12 題，建議後續研究者可以探 討其他CAT 的終止條件。

六、本研究並未探討試題的曝光率，建議後續研究者可以探討試題的曝光率。

參考文獻

中文部份

王文卿（2010）。DINA 模式與 G-DINA 模式參數估計比較。國立臺中教 育大學教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。

余民寧（2009）。試題反應理論(IRT)及其應用。臺北市：心理出版社。

吳慧珉（2006）。以知識結構為基礎之適性測驗選題策略強韌性探究。測 驗統計年刊，14(2)，1-16。

涂金堂（2003）。認知診斷評量的探究。臺南師範學院學報，37(2)，67-97。

陳亭宇（2010）。DINA 模式與 G-DINA 模式參數不變性探討。國立臺中 教育大學教育測驗統計研究所碩士論文。

陳惠敏（2010）。美國《沒有任何孩子落後法》之評析及其對我國中小學 教育之啟示－批判教學論觀點。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論 文。

劉育隆、曾筱倩、郭伯臣（2006）。以知識結構為基礎之適性測驗系統建 置。測驗統計年刊，14(2)，17-36。

英文部份

Airasian, P. W., & Bart, W. M. (1973). Ordering theory: A new and useful measurement model. Educational Technology, 5, 56-60.

Chang, H., & Zhang, J. (2002). Hypergeometric family and item overlap rates in computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 67, 387-398.

Chang, H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.

Cheng, Y. (2009). When cognitive diagnosis meets computerized adaptive testing: CD-CAT. Psychometrika, 74(4), 619-632.

Cheng, Y. & Chang, H. (2007). The modified maximum global discrimination index method for cognitive diagnostic computerized adaptive testing. In D.

J. Weiss (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2007 GMAC Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. New York: Wiley.

DeGroot, M. H. (1962). Uncertainty, information and sequential experiments.

Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 404-419.

de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically-based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 343-362.

de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika. 69(3), 333-353.

de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2008). Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: An analysis of fraction subtraction data.

Psychometrika, 73(4), 595-624.

de la Torre, J., & Lee, Y. S. (2010). A note on the invariance of the DINA model parameters. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 115-127.

Doornik, J. A. (2003). Object-oriented matrix programming using Ox (Version 3.1).[Computer software]. London, England: Timberlake Consultants Press.

Haertel, E. H. (1984). An application of latent class models to assessment data.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 333-346.

Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301-321.

Haertel, E. H., & Wiley, D. E. (1993). Representations of ability structures:

Implications for testing. In N. Frederiksen, R. Mislevy, & I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp.359-384). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Hartz, S. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the Unified Model for assessing cognitive abilities: blending theory with practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hartz, S., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (2002). Skill diagnosis: Theory and practice [Computer software user manual for Arpeggio software]. Princeton: ETS.

Henson, R., & Douglas, J. (2005). Test construction for cognitive diagnosis.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 262-277.

Huebner, A. (2010). An Overview of Recent Developments in Cognitive Diagnostic Computer Adaptive Assessments. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 15(3), January 2010.

Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few

Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258-272.

Leighton, J. P., Gierl, M. J., & Hunka, S. M. (2004). The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: a variation on Tatsuoka’s rule space approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41(3), 205-237.

Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

McGlohen, M. K., & Chang, H. (2008). Combining computer adaptive testing technology with cognitively diagnostic assessment. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 808-821.

Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., Yan, D., & Steinberg, L. S. (1999). Bayes nets in educational assessment: Where do the numbers come from? In K.B.

Laskey & H. Prade (Eds.). Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 437-446). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

Stocking, M. L. (1994). Three practical issues for modern adaptive testing item pools (ETS Research Rep. No. 94-5). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.

Tatsuoka, K. K. (1985). A Probabilistic Model for Diagnosing Misconceptions in the Pattern Classification Approach. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 55-73.

Tatsouka, C. (2002). Data analytic methods for latent parially ordered classification models. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 51, 337-350.

ordered sets. Journal of Royal Statistics, Series B, 65, 143-157.

Templin, J., & Henson, R. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287-305.

Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer et al.

(Eds.). Computerized adaptive testing:A primer (pp. 101-133). Hillsdale:

Erlbaum.

Xu, X., Chang, H., & Douglas J. (2003). A simulation study to compare CAT strategies for cognitive diagnosis. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Xu, X., & Douglas, J. (2006). Computerized adaptive testing under nonparametric IRT models. Psychometrika, 71, 121-137.