The practice of equating frequently involves not only the choice of a statistical equating procedure but also consideration of practical issues that bear upon the use and/or interpretation of equating results. In this paper, major emphasis is given to issues involved in identifying, quantifying, and (to the extent possible) eliminating various sources of error in equating. Other topics considered include content specifications and equating, equating in the context of cutting scores, reequating, and the effects of a security breach on equating. To simplify discussion, some issues are treated from the linear equating perspective in Kolen and Brennan (1987).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington DC: Author.
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.
Jarjoura, D. (1983). Best linear prediction of composite universe scores . Psychometrika, 48, 525-539.
5.
Jarjoura, D., & Kolen, M.J. (1985). Standard errors of equipercentile equating for the common item nonequivalent populations design. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 143-160.
6.
Kendall, M., & Stuart, A. (1977). The advanced theory of statistics (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
7.
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.
8.
Koleri, M.J. (1985a, April). Comparison of methods for linear equating under the common item nonequivalent populations design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
9.
Kolen, M.J. (1985b). Standard errors of Tucker equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 209-223.
10.
Kolen, M.J. (1986). Defining score scales in relation to measurement error (ACT Technical Bulletin No. 50). Iowa City IA: American College Testing Program.
11.
Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (1987). Linear equating models for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 263-277.
12.
Kolen, M.J., & Jarjoura, D. (1987). Analytic smoothing for equipercentile equating under the common item nonequivalent populations design. Psychometrika , 52, 43-59.
13.
Lord, F.M. (1950). Notes on comparable scalesfor test scores (RB-50-48) . Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
14.
Petersen, N.S., Cook, L.L., & Stocking, M.L. (1983). IRT versus conventional equating methods: A comparative study of scale stability. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 137-156.
15.
Petersen, N.S., Marco, G.L., & Stewart, E.E. (1982). A test of the adequacy of linear score equating models. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 71-135). New York: Academic Press.
16.
Rock, D.A. (1982). Equating using the confirmatory factor analysis model. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 247-257). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Rubin, D.B. (1982). Discussion of "Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures." In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 51-54). New York: Academic Press.
18.
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.
