Simplified equations are derived to compute the standard error of the frequency estimation method for studies indicate that the simplified equations work equating score distributions that are continuized using a uniform or Gaussian kernel function (Holland, King, & Thayer, 1989; Holland & Thayer, 1987). The simplified equations can be used to equate both observed- and smoothed-score distributions (Rosenbaum & Thayer, 1987). Results from two empirical reasonably well for moderate-size samples (e.g., 1,000 examinees).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angoff, W. H. (1984). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Reprint of Chapter 15 in R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd Ed.). Washington DC: American Council on Education, 1971.]
2.
Bahadur, R. R. (1966). A note on quantiles in large samples. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37, 577-580.
3.
Braun, H. I. , & Holland, P. W. (1982). Observedscore 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.
Burden, R. L. , Faires, J. D., & Reynolds, A. C. (1981). Numerical analysis (2nd ed.). Boston: Prindle, Weber & Schmidt.
5.
Donoghue, J. R. (1992). Data analysis for the reading assessment. In E. G. Johnson & N. Allen (Eds.), The NAEP 1990 technical report (pp. 215-241). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
6.
Holland, P. W., King, B. F., & Thayer, D. T. (1989). The standard error of equating for the kernel method of equating score distributions (Technical Report No. 89-93). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7.
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1987). Notes on the use of log-linear models forfitting discrete probability distributions (Technical Report No. 87-79). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8.
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1989). The kernel method of equating score distributions (Technical Report No. 89-7). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9.
International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries. (1987). User manual (Stat Library Vol. 1). Houston TX: Author.
10.
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.
11.
Johnson, E. G. (1992). The design of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 95-110.
12.
Liou, M. , & Cheng, P. E. (1995a). Asymptotic standard error of equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 259-286.
13.
Liou, M. , & Cheng, P. E. (1995b). Equipercentile equating via data-imputation techniques. Psychometrika, 60, 119-136.
14.
Little, R. J. A. , & Rubin, D. B. (1994). Test equating from biased samples, with application to the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19, 309-335.
15.
Livingston, S. A. (1993a). Small-sample equating with log-linear smoothing. JournalofEducational Measurement, 30, 23-29.
16.
Livingston, S. A. (1993b). An empirical tryout of kernelequating(Research ReportNo. 93-33). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17.
Lord, F. (1965). A strong true-score theory, with applications. Psychometrika, 30, 239-270.
18.
Rosenbaum, P. R. , & Thayer, D. (1987). Smoothing the joint and marginal distributions of scored twoway contingency tables in test equating. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 40, 43-49.
19.
Wald, A. (1949). Note on the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate. Annals ofMathematical Statistics, 20, 595-601.
