The purpose of this article was to extend the use of standard errors for equated score differences (SEEDs) to traditional equating functions. The SEEDs are described in terms of their original proposal for kernel equating functions and extended so that SEEDs for traditional linear and traditional equipercentile equating functions can be computed. These developments provide new understandings of the relationships between kernel and traditional equating functions that expand on prior developments of SEEDs and of standard errors of equating functions. The developments are demonstrated for an equivalent groups equating situation. The accuracies of the SEEDs are evaluated in simulations conducted using an equivalent groups equating example.
BishopY. M. M.FienbergS. E.HollandP. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BraunH. I.HollandP. W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In HollandP. W.RubinD. B. (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9–49). New York, NY: Academic.
3.
DoransN. J.LawrenceI. M. (1990). Checking the statistical equivalence of nearly identical test editions. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 245–254.
4.
FienbergS. E. (1979). The use of chi-squared statistics for categorical data problems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 41, 54–64.
5.
HabermanS. J. (1989). Concavity and estimation. The Annals of Statistics, 17, 1631–1661.
6.
HansonB. A. (1996). Testing for differences in test score distributions using loglinear models. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 305–321.
7.
HansonB. A.ZengL.KolenM. J. (1993). Standard errors of Levine linear equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 225–237.
8.
HollandP. W.KingB. F.ThayerD. T. (1989). The standard error of equating for the kernel method of equating score distributions(Technical Report 89-83). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9.
HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (2000). Univariate and bivariate loglinear models for discrete test score distributions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 133–183.
10.
JarjouraD.KolenM. J. (1985). Standard errors of equipercentile equating for the common item nonequivalent populations design. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 143–160.
11.
KendallM. G.StuartA. (1977). The advanced theory of statisticsVol. I, 4th ed.New York, NY: Macmillan.
12.
KolenM. J. (1985). Standard errors of Tucker equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 209–223.
13.
KolenM. J.BrennanR. J. (2004). Test equating, scaling and linking: Methods and practices. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
14.
LiouM.ChengP. E. (1995). Asymptotic standard error of equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 259–286.
15.
LiouM.ChengP. E.JohnsonE. G. (1997). Standard errors of the kernel equating methods under the common-item design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 349–369.
16.
LordF. M. (1982). The standard error of equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 165–174.
17.
MosesT.HollandP. (2006). Kernel equating without presmoothing. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
18.
MosesT.YangW.WilsonC. (2007). Using kernel equating to check the statistical equivalence of nearly identical test editions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 157–178.
19.
von DavierA. A.HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (2004). The kernel method of test equating. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag.
20.
von DavierA. A.KongN. (2005). A unified approach to linear equating for the nonequivalent groups design. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30, 313–342.
21.
WangT. (2006). Standard errors of equating for equipercentile equating with log-linear pre-smoothing using the delta method(CASMA Research Report, No. 14). Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment, Iowa.
22.
ZengL. (1991). Standard errors of linear equating for the single-group design (Research Report 91-4). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
23.
ZengL.CopeR. T. (1995). Standard error of linear equating for the counterbalanced design. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 337–348.
