Development of Diagnostic Test Using Construct Modeling Approach For Diagnosis Students’Cognitions in Nursing Process

Development of Diagnostic Test Using Construct Modeling Approach For Diagnosis Students’Cognitions in Nursing Process

  • ศุภามณ จันทร์สกุล จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย
  • ศิริเดช สุชีวะ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย
  • โชติกา ภาษีผล จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย
Keywords: Diagnostic test, Construct modeling, Cognitive diagnosis, Nursing process


This research aimed to: 1) develop the “nursing process” diagnostic test by construct
modelling concept and 2) validate the quality of the diagnostic test. The research had 3
phases: 1) survey students’ cognitions in nursing process, 2) develop the diagnostic test
using construct modelling concept, and 3) validate the quality of the diagnostic test.
The participants were 233 third year nurse students (phase 1) and 305 (phase 3). They
were selected by purposive sampling. The research instruments were as follows: phase 1
scenario essay-type questions and phase 3 ordered multiple-choice (OMC). The research
periods were 6 months. The quality of the test items was analyzed by items ft indices.
The research results were as follows: A) the constructed map of 3 levels in nursing
process covered 5 groups: 1) complete understand with confdence (CUC), 2) complete
understand without confdence (CULC), 3) incomplete understand (IU), 4) lack of knowledge
(LK), and 5) misconception (MC). Within the model developed, the item design for
students to test (phase 3) were ordered multiple-choice (OMC) and scoring guides of 3
scores (i.e. 0, 1, 2) with the validated of the quality of the diagnostic test by the ordered
partition of rasch model. B) The validation of the diagnostic test was investigated through
items ft indices quality. The quality by weighted MNSQ (Inft) were between 0.91 to 1.07,
unweighted MNSQ (Outft) were between 0.840 to 1.120, t-statistics were between -0.90
to 1.00. Moreover, the items discrimination were between 0.31 to 0.66, the EAP (Expected
A Posteriori) reliability and Cronbach’s alpha reliability of test were 0.6.


Download data is not yet available.


1. Harnyoot, O. Nursing Process and
Implications. Journal of The Royal Thai
Army Nurses [Online]. 2014 [Reach on
2016/11/21]; 15(3): 137-43. Accessed
php/JRTAN/article/view/30350. (in Thai)
2. Potter, PA. & Perry, AG. Fundamental
of nursing. 6 Edition. St.Louis. Mosby;
3. Alfaro-LeFevre, R. Applying Nursing
Process: A Tool for Critical Thinking.
3 Edition. Philadelphia. J.B. Lippincott;
4. Rattanakanlaya, K., Leksawasdi, N.,
Nanasil, P., Janmahasathein, S., and
Anusasananun. Problems and barriers
amoung nursing students, Faculty of
nursing, Chiang Mai university when
implementing the nursing process in
surgical ward practice. Journal of Nursing
Science Chulalongkorn University, 2007;
19(1): 134-144. (in Thai)
5. Tepworachai, U. & Santwanpas, N.
Factors affecting academic achievement
of nursing students at boromrajajnani
college of nursing, praboromarajchnok
institute for health workforce, 2010.
(in Thai)
6. Wilson, M. Cognitive Diagnosis Using
Item Response Models. Journal of
Psychology, 2008; 216(2): 74-88.
7. Wilson, M. Constructing Measures: an
item response modeling approach.
Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates; 2005.
8. Draney, K. Designing learning progressions
with the BEAR assessment system. Paper
presented at the Learning Progressions
inn Science (LeaPS) conference. Iowa
City. IA. [Online]. 2009 [Reach on
2016/11/21]; Available from: http:// edu/projects/
9. Suksiri, W. Construct Mapping: An
Approach of Cognition Modeling in
Valid Assessment Systems. Journal of
Research and Curriculum Development,
2014; 4(1): 47-66. (in Thai)
10. Wilson, M. The ordered partition
model: An extension of the partial
credit model. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 1992; 16(4): 309-325.
11. Chianchana, C. Multidimensional
Analysis. Journal of Education Khon
Kaen University; 2009; 32(4): 13-22.
(in Thai)
12. Heesch, K.C., Masse, L.C. & Dunn, A.L.
Using rasch modeling to re-evaluate
three scales related to physical activity:
enjoyment, perceived benefts and
perceived barriers. Health education
research theory & practice, 2006;
21(1). 58-72.
13. Suksiri, W. & Worain, C, Investigating
Tentative Cutscores for Science
Learning Area on the Ordinary National
Educational Test Scores using the
Construct Mapping Method: An Analysis
for Further Judgments. Research report.
National Institute of Educational
Testing Service (Public Organization);
2016. (in Thai)
14. Wu, M., Adams, R., Wilson, M., and
Haldane, S. ACER ConQuest version 2.0:
Generalized item response modeling
software [Computer software and
manual]. Camberwell. ACER Press; 2007.
15. George, D. & Mallery, P. SPSS for
Windows step by step: A simple guide
and reference. 11.0 update. 4 Edition.
Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
16. Kline, P. The handbook of psychological
testing. 2 Edition. London. Routledge;
17. Briggs, D.C., Alonzo, A.C., Schwab, C.
& Wilson, M. Diagnostic Assessment
With Ordered Multiple-Choice Items.
Education Assessment, 2006; 11(1),
Research Articles; บทความวิจัย