Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0146621608321757v1
33/4/285    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moses, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparison of Statistical Significance Tests for Selecting Equating Functions

Tim Moses

Educational Testing Service, tmoses{at}ets.org

This study compared the accuracies of nine previously proposed statistical significance tests for selecting identity, linear, and equipercentile equating functions in an equivalent groups equating design. The strategies included likelihood ratio tests for the loglinear models of tests' frequency distributions, regression tests, Kolmogorov—Smirnov tests, and equated score difference tests. Results showed that the most accurate strategies were the likelihood ratio tests and the equated score difference tests. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of applications to equating practice.

Key Words: equating • power • simulation

This version was published on June 1, 2009

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 33, No. 4, 285-306 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0146621608321757
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?