第五章 結論與建議
第二節 未來研究建議
本研究未盡完善之處，提出以下建議，以供後續相關研究者參考。
一、樣本數
本研究設定樣本人數為 200 人、1000 人一種，後續可將樣本數再提高為 1500 人、2000 人和 3000 人來探討其估計效果是否可達一致性。
二、試題參數
本研究將試題參數設定為 g= s= 0.1、0.25，後續可再廣泛討論不同試題參 數的組合如：g=0.1、s=0.15 或 g=0.1、s=0.2 或 g=0.1、s=0.25 或 g=0.15、s=0.1 或 g=0.15、s=0.2 或 g=0.15、s=0.25 或 g=0.2、s=0.1 或 g=0.2、s=0.15 或 g=0.2、
s=0.25 或 g=0.25、s=0.1 或 g=0.25、s=0.15 或 g=0.25、s=0.2，來探究其估計效 果。
68
江毓鈞（2012）。運用 Wiimote 互動式電子白板融入教學對國小學習障礙學生 在分數加減概念與運算之學習成效研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系
周子敬（2006）。結構方程模式（SEM）－精通 LISREL。臺北市：全華。
卓淑瑜（2011）。不同認知診斷適性測驗演算法結合知識結構之成效比較。國立
69
楊智為、卓淑瑜、郭伯臣、陳亭宇（2011）。DINA 與 G-DINA 模式參數不變性 探討。測驗統計年刊，19（1），1-16。
70
謝謹謙（2011）。利用認知診斷測驗探討激發式動態教學成效之研究-以簡易二 次函數及圖形為例。國立交通大學理學院科技與數位學習學程碩士論文，
未出版，新竹市。
蘇家鋒（2012）。六年級自然與生活科技領域「槓桿」單元之電腦化測驗研發。
亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
71
英文部分
Akaike, Hirotugu. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19 (6): 716–723
Akaike, H. (1978). A Bayesian analysis of the minimumAIC procedure, Annals of the Institute of StatisticalMathematics, 30(1):9-14.
Akaike, Hirotsugu. (1980). Likelihood and the Bayes procedure, Bayesian Statistics, Ed. J.M. Bernardo et al., Valencia: University Press.143-166.
DiBello, L. V., Stout, W. F., & Roussos, L. A. (1995). Unified
congnitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment liklihood-based classification techniques.,In P. D. Nichols, D. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.) Cognitively diagnosticassessment. 361-389. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69(3), 333-353.
de la Torre, J. (2006). Attribute vector profile comparisons at the state level: An application and extension of cognitive diagnosis modeling in NAEP. Paper presented at the international meeting of the Psychometric Society, Montreal,
Canada.
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. (2008). Model evaluation and multiple strategies in cognitive diagnosis: An analysis of fraction subtraction data. Psychometrika,
72
73(4), 595-624.
de la Torre, J. (2009). A cognitive diagnosis model for cognitively based
multiple-choice options.Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(3), 163-183.
de la Torre, J., & Lee, Y.-S. (2010). A note on the invariance of the DINA model parameters.Journal of Educational Measurement, 47(1), 115-127.
de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework.Psychometrika , 76, 179-199.
Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument ineducationalresearch.Acta Psychologica, 37, 59-374.
Gideon Schwarz(1978) Estimating the Dimension of a Model.The Annals of Statistics, Vol. 6, No. 2. (5), 461-464.
Hartz, S., Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (2002). Skill diagnosis: Theory and practice Computer software user manual for Arpeggio software. Princeton: ETS.
Hartz, S. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign.
Huebner, Alan. (2010). An Overview of Recent Developments in
CognitiveDiagnostic Computer Adaptive Assessments.Practical Assessment, Research &Evaluation, 15(3). Available online:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=3.
Junker, B., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few
assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied
73
Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 258-272.
McGlohen, M., & Chang, H. (2008). Combining computer adaptive
testingtechnology with cognitively diagnostic assessment.Behavior Research Methods,40 (3), 808-821.
Nichols, P. D. (1994). A framework for developing cognitively diagnostic assessment.Review of educational research, 64(4),575-603.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Sheehan, K. M. (1997). A tree-based approach to proficiency scaling and diagnosticassessment.Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 333-352.
Tanaka, J.S. (1993). Mutifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K.A.Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds), Testing structural equation models ,10-39.
NewburyPark, CA: Sage.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconception based on item response theory, Journal of Education Measurement,
20(4),345-354.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1985). A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions by the pattern classification approach.Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 55-73.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1987). Validation of Cognitive Sensitivity for item response curves.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 233-245.
Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287-305.
74
von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data(ETS Research Rep. No. RR-05-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.