The Tucker and Levine equally reliable linear meth ods for test form equating in the common-item non equivalent-populations design are formulated in a way that promotes understanding of the methods. The for mulation emphasizes population notions and is used to draw attention to the practical differences between the methods. It is shown that the Levine method weights group differences more heavily than the Tucker method. A scheme for forming a synthetic population is suggested that is intended to facilitate interpretation of equating results. A procedure for displaying form and group differences is developed that also aids inter pretation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angoff, W.H. (1953). Test reliability and effective test length. Psychometrika, 18, 1-14.
2.
Angoff, W.H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thomdike (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 508-600). Washington DC: American Council on Education. (Reprinted by Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ, 1984 .)
3.
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: Academic Press.
4.
Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley.
5.
Kolen, M.J. (1985). Standard errors of Tucker equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 209-223.
6.
Levine, R.S. (1955). Equating the score scales of alternate forms administered to samples of different ability (ETS Research Bulletin No. 23). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7.
Woodruff, D. (1986). Derivations of observed score linear equating methods based on test score models for the common item nonequivalent populations design. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 245-257.
