Simulation Results of Effects on Linear and Curvilinear Observed-and True-Score Equating Procedures of Matching on a Fallible Criterion

Abstract

Two independent replications of a sequence of simulations were carried out to aid in the diagnosis and interpretation of equating differences found between representative (random) and matched (nonrandom) samples for three commonly used conventional observed-score equating procedures (Tucker, Levine equally reliable, and chained equipercentile) and one item response theory (IRT) based equating procedure (three-parameter logistic, or 3PL, model true-score equating). The results support the theory-based prediction that observed-score equating methods such as Tucker and chained equipercentile are more affected by sample variation than are a true-score equating method (3PL IRT) and an observed-score method based on true- score assumptions (Levine equally reliable). These results further suggest that matching equating samples on the basis of a fallible measure of ability may not be advisable for any equating method studied, except possibly the Tucker method.

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 — 27 citations exist upstream.

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