Two different types of anchors are investigated in this study: a mini-version anchor and an anchor that has a less spread of difficulty than the tests to be equated. The latter is referred to as a midi anchor. The impact of these two different types of anchors on observed score equating are evaluated and compared with respect to systematic error (bias), random equating error (SEE), and total equating error (RMSE) using SAT operational data. The results suggest that the overall bias, SEE, and RMSE when the midi anchor is used are either smaller than or very similar to those when the mini anchor test is used. The findings suggest that a midi anchor test would be preferred to a mini anchor test if equating accuracy at the ends of the score scale is not a primary concern.
Braun, H.I., & Holland, P.W. ( 1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9-49). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
Cook, L.L., & Petersen, N.S. (1987). Problems related to the use of conventional and item response theory equating methods in less than optimal circumstances. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 225-244.
4.
Dorans, N.J., & Feigenbaum, M.D. (1994). Equating issues engendered by changes to the SAT and PSAT/NMSQT. In I. M. Lawrence, N. J. Dorans, M. D. Feigenbaum, N. J. Feryok, A. P. Schmitt, & N. K. Wright.Technical issues related to the introduction of the new SAT and PSAT/NMSQT (ETS RM-94-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
Dorans, N.J., Kubiak, A., & Melican, G.J. ( 1998). Guidelines for selection of embedded common items for score equating (ETS SR-98-02). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
6.
Dorans, N.J., & Lawrence, I.M. (1990). Checking the statistical equivalence of nearly identical test editions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 245-254.
7.
Dorans, N.J., Liu, J., & Hammond, S. ( 2008). Anchor test type and population invariance: An exploration across subpopulations and test administrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 81-97.
8.
Holland, P.W., & Dorans, N.J. ( 2006). Linking and equating. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 187-220). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/ Praeger.
9.
Holland, P.W., Dorans, N.J., & Petersen, N.S. (2006). Equating test scores. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 169-203). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
10.
Klein, L.W., & Jarjoura, D. ( 1985). The importance of content representation for common-item equating with nonrandom groups. Journal of Educational Measurement , 22, 197-206.
11.
Kolen, M.J. ( 1990). Does matching in equating work? A discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 97-104.
12.
Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. ( 2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
13.
Liu, J., Sinharay, S., Holland, P.W., Feigenbaum, M., & Curley, E. ( 2009). The effects of different types of anchor tests on observed score equating (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-09-41). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
MacCann, R.G. ( 1990). Derivations of observed score equating methods that cater to populations differing in ability. Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 146-170.
16.
Marco, G.L., Petersen, N.S., & Stewart, E.E. ( 1983). A large-scale evaluation of linear and curvilinear score equating models (ETS Research Memorandum No. RM-83-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17.
Petersen, N.S., Kolen, M.J., & Hoover, H.D. ( 1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 221-262). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
18.
Sinharay, S., & Holland, P.W. ( 2006). The correlation between the scores of a test and an anchor test (ETS RR-06-04). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19.
Sinharay, S., & Holland, P.W. ( 2007). Is it necessary to make anchor tests min-versions of the tests being equated or can some restrictions be relaxed? Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 249-275.
20.
von Davier, A.A., Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. ( 2004). The kernel equating method of equating. New York, NY: Springer.
21.
Wang, T., Lee, W., Brennan, R.L., & Kolen, M.J. ( 2008). A comparison of the frequency estimation and chained equipercentile methods under the common-item non-equivalent groups design . Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 632-651.
