What Combination of Sampling and Equating Methods Works Best?

Abstract

Combinations of five methods of equating test forms and two methods of selecting samples of students for equating were compared for accuracy. The two sampling methods were representative sampling from the population and matching samples on the anchor test score. The equating methods were the Tucker, Levine equally reliable, chained equipercentile, frequency estimation, and item response theory (IRT) 3PL methods. The tests were the Verbal and Mathematical sections of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The criteria for accuracy were measures of agreement with an equivalent-groups equating based on more than 115,000 students taking each form. Much of the inaccuracy in the equatings could be attributed to overall bias. The results for all equating methods in the matched samples were similar to those for the Tucker and frequency estimation methods in the representative samples; these equatings made too small an adjustment for the difference in the difficulty of the test forms. In the representative samples, the chained equipercentile method showed a much smaller bias. The IRT (3PL) and Levine methods tended to agree with each other and were inconsistent in the direction of their bias.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 98 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.