Table of Contents: Validation
< Previous - Next >


Validation of Knowledge Spaces


Percentage of correct solutions

Imagine a surmise relationship between to items x and y (ySx), where item y is prerquisite for item x. The admissible solution patterns for the items are that both items are solved correctly (1,1), neither of the items is solved correctly (0,0), or only item y ist solved correctly (0,1). In other words, x can only be solved in combination with a correct solution to y, while y can also be solved by itself. Therefore, we expect that the solution frequency for item y is equal or higher than the solution frequency for item x. In the Hasse diagram the relationship ySx is presented by a line going down to the hypothesized prerequisite (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Surmise relationship between two items x and y (ySx)

 

Symmetric distances

Symmetric distances between a knowledge structure and a binary data matrix denote the averaged minimal distance or number of deviations between each person's response pattern and the closest hypothesized knowledge state. Formally, the symmetric distance d between two sets A and B is defined as
      (4)

Distance agreement coeffcient

For a comparison of di erent models, the symmetric distances have to be related to the number of states in each model. This means, that with regard to the varying sizes of the hypothetical knowledge structures, a comparison of the structures' fit is only possible in consideration of the number of knowledge states within the powersets () of the respective structures. Hence, as further validation method to test the fit between a knowledge structure and a set of data in consideration of the structures' sizes we can calculate the distance agreement coefficient (DA).
      (5)
A lower value of the distance agreement coeffcient indicates a better fit of a knowledge structure to a given set of data.

References

  • Albert, D. (1995). Surmise relations between tests. Talk at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, University of California, Irvine, August.
  • Albert, D., Brandt, S., Hockemeyer, C., & Schappacher, W. (in preparation). Properties of surmise relations between tests. Manuscript in preparation.
  • Brandt, S., Albert, D., & Hockemeyer, C. (1999). Surmise relations between tests - preliminary results of the mathematical modelling. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 2.
  • Brandt, S., Albert, D., & Hockemeyer, C. (2000). Surmise relations between tests - mathematical considerations. Submitted to Discrete Applied Mathematics.

Top of the Page