Adjustment by minimum discriminant information provides an approach to linking test forms in the case of a nonequivalent groups design with no satisfactory common items. This approach employs background information on individual examinees in each administration so that weighted samples of examinees form pseudo-equivalent groups in the sense that they resemble samples from equivalent groups. Linking methods for equivalent groups are then applied to the weighted samples. To illustrate the approach, 29 administrations from a testing program are linked via the method of pseudo-equivalent groups. Because the forms used are currently linked by use of kernel equating, it is possible to compare the reasonableness of results from pseudo-equivalent groups to results from kernel equating.
BerkR. H. (1972). Consistency and asymptotic normality of MLE’s for exponential models. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43, 193–204. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177692713
2.
CochranW. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
3.
DarrochJ. N.RatcliffD. (1972). Generalized iterative scaling for log-linear models. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43, 1470–1480. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177692379
4.
DemingW. E.StephanF. F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 423–444. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731829
5.
DoransN. J.FeigenbaumM. D. (1994). Equating issues engendered by changes to the SAT and PSAT/NMSQT. In LawrenceI. M.DoransN. J.FeigenbaumM. D.FeryokN. J.SchmittA. P.WrightN. K. (Eds.), Technical issues related to the introduction of the new SAT and PSAT/NMSQT(ETS Research Memorandum No. RM-94-10; pp. 93–124). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
6.
DoransN. J.HollandP. W. (2000). Population invariance and equatability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 281–306. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01088.x
7.
DoransN. J.MosesT. P.EignorD. R. (2011). Equating test scores: Towards best practices. In von DavierA. A. (Ed.), Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98138-3 2
8.
DuongM. Q.von DavierA. A. (2012). Observed score-equating with a heterogeneous target population. International Journal of Testing, 12, 224–251. doi:10.1080/15305058.2011.620725
9.
GilulaZ.HabermanS. J. (2000). Density approximation by summary statistics: An information-theoretic approach. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 27, 521–534. doi:10.1111/1467-9469.00204
10.
GuoH. (2010). Accumulative equating error after a chain of linear equatings. Psychometrika, 75, 438–453. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9160-x
11.
GuoH.LiuJ.DoransN.FeigenbaumM. (2011). Multiple linking in equating and random scale drift (Research Rep. No. RR-11-46). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
12.
HabermanS. J. (1974). The analysis of frequency data. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
HabermanS. J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data, volume ii: New developments. New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-312502-6.50008-1
14.
HabermanS. J. (1984). Adjustment by minimum discriminant information. The Annals of Statistics, 12, 971–988. doi:10.1214/aos/1176346715
15.
HabermanS. J. (1996). Advanced statistics, volume 1: Description of populations. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4417-0
16.
HabermanS. J. (2010a). Limits on the accuracy of linking (Research Rep. No. RR-10-22). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
17.
HabermanS. J. (2010b). Raw-to-scale conversions with continuous exponential families (Research Mem. No. RM-10-14). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
18.
HabermanS. J. (2010c). Using exponential families for equating. In von DavierA. A. (Ed.), Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking (pp. 125–140). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98138-3_8
19.
HabermanS. J. (2014). A program for adjustment by minimum discriminant information (Research Mem. No. RM-14-01). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
HabermanS. J.GuoH.LiuJ.DoransN. (2008). Consistency of SATR® I: Reasoning Test score conversions (Research Rep. No. RR-08-67). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
22.
HabermanS. J.LeeY.-H.QianJ. (2009). Jackknifing techniques for evaluation of equating accuracy (Research Rep. No. RR-09-39). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
23.
KarlinS.StuddenW. J. (1966). Tchebycheff systems: With applications in analysis and statistics. New York, NY: Interscience. doi:10.1137/1009050
24.
KolenM. J. (2006). Scaling and norming. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 155–185). Westport, CT: Praeger.
25.
KolenM. J.BrennanR. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4310-4
26.
KullbackS.LeiblerR. (1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 79–86. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729694
27.
LiaoC.-W.LivingstonS. A. (2012, April 14). A search for alternatives to common-item equating. Paper presented at NCME Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
28.
LivingstonS. A. (2004). Equating test scores (without IRT). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
29.
LoèveM. (1963). Probability theory (3rd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
30.
MosesT.DengW.ZhangY.-L. (2011). Two approaches for using multiple anchors in neat equating: A description and demonstration. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35, 362–379. doi:10.1177/0146621611405510
31.
QianJ. (2012, April 14). Updating the empirical target population in weighted IRT equating. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Measurement in Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
32.
QianJ.von DavierA.JiangY. (2013). Achieving a stable scale for an assessment with multiple forms: Weighting test samples in IRT linking. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, 66, 171–185. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98138-3_8
33.
von DavierA. A.HollandP. W.ThayerD. T. (2004). The kernel method of test equating. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/b97446
