本章分為兩節，第一節為本研究之結論，第二節為本研究尚未完備之所在提 出研究建議，以供後續研究者繼續探討之用。
第一節 結論
本研究主要探討提出適性化認知診斷測驗之新選題法，與在不同 Q 矩陣設計 下之診斷辨識率之優劣。研究結果如下：
一、 在 WADI 上加入候選認知概念組型是對平均概念辨識率有助益的，但是並非 愈多愈好。
二、 在較高之平均測量概念數的 Q 矩陣設計下，WADI3 與 WADI5 都會提升施 測前期的平均概念辨識率，且又以 WADI3 最佳，但在後期則與 PWKL 相差 不大。
第二節 建議
本節就本研究未盡完備之處提出建議，以供後續研究之參考。
一、 本研究之 Q 矩陣採平均設計，建議後續研究可以改採不平均設計，更能符合 實徵資料。
二、 本研究採用之模擬資料為 6 個認知概念，建議後續研究可以改採其他認知概 念數，以瞭解不同認知概念數在選題法之影響。
三、 本研究採用 DINA 模式作為估計模式，建議後續研究可以改採其他模式，以 瞭解不同模式之差距。
參考文獻
中文部分
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。
Chang, H.(2004). Understanding computerized adaptive testing – From
Robbins-Monro to Lord and beyond. In David Kaplan (Ed.) The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 117-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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, 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:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 115–130.
de la Torre, J., & Douglas, J. A. (2004). Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis. Psychometrika, 69, 333–353.
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.
DiBello, L. V., Stout, W. F., & Roussos, L. A. (1995). Unified cognitive/
psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In
P. D. Nichols, D. F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 361–389). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Finkelman, M. D., Kim, W., Roussos, L., & Verschoor, A. (2010). A binary programming approach to automated test assembly for cognitive diagnosis models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 310–326.
Haertel, E. H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 333–352.
Henson, R., & Douglas, J. (2005). Test construction for cognitive diagnosis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 262–277.
Henson, R., Roussos, L., Douglas, J., & He, X. (2008). Cognitive diagnostic
attribute-level discrimination indices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 275–288.
Huebner, (2010).Cognitive Diagnostic Computer Adaptive Assessments . Journal of Educational Measurement, 46 (3),293-313.
Huebner, Alan, (2010). An Overview of Recent Developments in Cognitive
Diagnostic Computer Adaptive Assessments. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 15(3). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=3.
Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few
assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. 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. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McGlohen, M., & Chang, H.-H. (2008). Combining computer adaptive testing
technology with cognitively diagnostic assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 808–821.
Nichols, D. M. (1994). Issues in Designing Learning by Teaching Systems. In Proceedings of the East-West International Conference on Computer Technologies in Education (EW-ED'94) (pp. 176-181). Crimea, Ukraine.
Tatsuoka, C., & Ferguson, T. (2003). Sequential classification on partially 67 ordered sets. Journal of Royal Statistics, Series B, 65, 143-157.
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.
Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1997). Computerized cognitive diagnostic
adaptive testing: Effect on remedial instruction as empirical validation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34 (1), 3–20.
Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer et al. (Eds.).
Computerized adaptive testing:A primer (pp. 101-133). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Wang, C., Chang, H., & Douglas, J. (2012). Combining CAT with cognitive diagnosis:
a weighted item selection approach. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 95-109.
Xu, X., Chang, H.-H., & Douglas, J. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing strategies for cognitive diagnosis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National
Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
Yamamoto, K. (1989). HYBRID model of IRT and latent class model. ETS research report series (RR 89-41). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.