发表机构
Australian Catholic University; Technolyceum (Ministry of Education School); University of Johannesburg; City University Macau; De La Salle University（澳大利亚天主教大学; 技术学院（教育部学校）; 约翰内斯堡大学; 澳门城市大学; 德拉萨大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究利用G-DINA模型分析美国与南非学生FCI数据，发现14/30题项存在跨文化DIF，表明Q矩阵需在跨情境部署前验证，以反映真实概念推理差异。
AI 中文摘要
力概念量表（FCI）是物理教育中应用最广泛的研究型评估工具之一，然而其潜在认知结构在不同教育情境中具有可迁移性的假设在很大程度上仍未得到检验。本研究利用广义确定性输入、噪声“与”门（G-DINA）认知诊断模型，对两大群体开展FCI Q矩阵的可迁移性研究：来自美国“STEM学习成果学习”（LASSO）在线系统数据库的学生（N = 4,750），以及南非约翰内斯堡大学物理入门课程的学生（N = 1,016）。我们并未将分析视为局部模型校准练习，而是将问题界定为跨情境认知不变性。差异题项功能（DIF）分析揭示了显著的跨文化差异：在控制潜在技能掌握程度后，30个题项中有14个表现出高DIF。这些差异集中在力动力学和接触力推理方面，并且在替代性Q矩阵设定下保持稳定。研究结果表明，观察到的差异反映了学生在概念推理上的真实差异，而非心理测量学上的伪迹，这凸显了在将认知诊断和自适应评估部署到多元非本地教育情境之前验证Q矩阵结构的重要性。
英文摘要
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the most widely used research-based assessments in physics education, yet the assumption that its underlying cognitive structure is transferable across educational contexts remains largely untested. This study investigates the transferability of FCI Q-matrices using the Generalized Deterministic Inputs, Noisy "And" Gate (G-DINA) cognitive diagnostic applied to two large cohorts: students from the Learning About STEM Student Outcomes (LASSO) online system database in the United States (N = 4,750) and introductory physics students at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa (N = 1,016). Rather than treating the analysis as a local model calibration exercise, we frame the problem as one of cross-context cognitive invariance. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analyses revealed substantial cross-cultural differences, with 14 of 30 items exhibiting high DIF after controlling for latent skill mastery. These differences were concentrated in force dynamics and contact-force reasoning and remained invariant under alternative Q-matrix specifications. The findings suggest that observed differences reflect genuine variations in students' conceptual reasoning rather than psychometric artifacts, highlighting the importance of validating Q-matrix structures before deploying cognitive diagnostic and adaptive assessments across diverse non-local educational settings.
Comments25 pages, 3 figures, 6 tables; V2: further references added
