This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cook, L. L. Articles by Paterson, N. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Problems Related to the Use of Conventional and Item Response Theory Equating Methods in Less Than Optimal Circumstances

Educatoional Testing service

Nancy S. Paterson

Educatoional Testing service

This paper focuses on a discussion of how various equating methods are affected by (1) sampling error, (2) sample characteristics, and (3) characteristics of anchor test items. Studies that examine the effect of analytic techniques for smoothing or modeling mar ginal and bivariate frequency distributions on the ac curacy of equipercentile equating are reviewed. A need for simulation and empirical studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness of analytic smoothing tech niques for recovering the underlying distribution when sample size, test length, and distributional shape are varied is identified. Studies that examine the question of whether an equating transformation remains the same regardless of the group used to define it are also reviewed. The results of some studies suggested that this may not be a problem for forms of a homogene ous test constructed to be similar in all respects. Re sults of other studies indicated that examinees who take a test on different administration dates may vary in systematic ways and thus affect equating results. Finally, studies which examine the characteristics of anchor test items are reviewed. It is concluded that whenever groups differ in level and dispersion of abil ity, special care must be taken to assure that the an chor test is a miniature of the total test.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 11, No. 3, 225-244 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168701100302


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Huiqin Hu, W. T. Rogers, and Z. Vukmirovic Investigation of IRT-Based Equating Methods in the Presence of Outlier Common Items Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2008; 32(4): 311 - 333. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. A. von Davier and C. Wilson Investigating the Population Sensitivity Assumption of Item Response Theory True-Score Equating Across Two Subgroups of Examinees and Two Test Formats Applied Psychological Measurement, January 1, 2008; 32(1): 11 - 26. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Qing Yi, H. Assessment, D. J. Harris, and Xiaohong Gao Invariance of Equating Functions Across Different Subgroups of Examinees Taking a Science Achievement Test Applied Psychological Measurement, January 1, 2008; 32(1): 62 - 80. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. S. Petersen A Discussion of Population Invariance of Equating Applied Psychological Measurement, January 1, 2008; 32(1): 98 - 101. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. A. von Davier and C. Wilson IRT True-Score Test Equating: A Guide Through Assumptions and Applications Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2007; 67(6): 940 - 957. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. L. Stocking An Alternative Method for Scoring Adaptive Tests Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1996; 21(4): 365 - 389. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Skaggs and R. W. Lissitz Effect of Examinee Ability on Test Equating Invariance Applied Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1988; 12(1): 69 - 82. [Abstract]

				W. H. Angoff Technical and Practical Issues in Equating: A Discussion of Four Papers Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1987; 11(3): 291 - 300.