Three linear equating methods for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design are compared using an analytical method. The analysis investigated the be havior of the three methods when the true-score corre lation between the test and anchor was less than unity, a situation that may occur in practice. The analysis is graphically illustrated using data from a test equating situation. Conclusions derived from the analysis have implications for the practical application of these equating methods.
Angoff, W.H. (1953). Test reliability and effective test length. Psychometrika, 18, 1-14.
2.
Angoff, W.H. (1982). Summary and derivation of equating methods used at ETS. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 55-70). New York: Academic Press.
3.
Angoff, W.H. (1984). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Reprint of chapter in R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington DC: American Council on Education, 1971.]
4.
Angoff, W.H. (1987). Technical and practical issues in equating: A discussion of four papers. Applied Psychological Measurement , 11, 291-300.
5.
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. 9-50). New York: Academic Press.
6.
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.
7.
Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley.
8.
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.
9.
Kolen, M.J. (1985). Standard errors of Tucker equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 209-223.
10.
Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (1987). Linear equating models for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 263-277.
11.
Levine, R. (1955). Equating the score scales of alternate forms administered to samples of different ability (ETS Research Bulletin 55-23. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12.
Lord, F.M. (1960). Large sample covariance analysis when the control variable is fallible. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, 307-321.
13.
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
Woodruff, D.J. (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.
15.
Chernikova, N.V. (1965). Algorithm for finding a general formula for non-negative solutions of a system of linear inequalities. U.S.S.R. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 5, 228-233.
16.
Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement (Vol. I). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Lehner, P.E., & Noma, E. (1980). A new solution to the problem of finding all numerical solutions to ordered metric structures. Psychometrika, 45, 135-137.
18.
Lukas, J. (1985). COMESCAL: A microcomputer program for testing axioms and finding scale values for conjoint measurement data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 17, 129-130.
19.
McClelland, G.H., & Coombs, C.H. (1975). ORDMET: A general algorithm for constructing all numerical solutions to ordered metric structures. Psychometrika , 40, 269-290.
20.
Motzkin, T.S., Raiffa, H., Thompson, G.L., & Thrall, R.M. (1953). The double description method. In H. W. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games, II. Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
