National Library of Australia

<< Previous record  /  Next record >>
Record 11 of 50
You must be logged in to Tag Records
What Combination of Sampling and Equating Methods Works Best? [microform] : Revised / Samuel A. Livingston and Others
Bib ID 5505244
Format BookBook, MicroformMicroform, OnlineOnline
Author
Livingston, Samuel A
 
Online Versions
Description [Washington, D.C.] : Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 1989 
27 p. 
Summary

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: (1) the Tucker method; (2) the Levine method; (3) the chained equipercentile method; (4) the frequency estimation; and (5) an item response theory (IRT) method; specifically, the three-parameter logistic model. The tests were the verbal and mathematics 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 of 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 and Levine methods tended to agree with each other and were inconsistent in the direction of their bias. Five tables and four figures present study data. (Author/SLD)

Notes

Sponsoring Agency: Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.

ERIC Note: Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, March 27-31, 1989).

May also be available online. Address as at 14/8/18: https://eric.ed.gov/

Reproduction Microfiche. [Washington D.C.]: ERIC Clearinghouse microfiches : positive. 
Subjects Comparative Analysis.  |  Data Collection.  |  Equated Scores.  |  High School Students.  |  High Schools.  |  Latent Trait Theory.  |  Research Methodology.  |  Sampling.  |  Statistical Analysis.  |  Test Bias.  |  Test Format.  |  Equipercentile Equating Frequency Estimation Equipercentile Equating Large Scale Programs Levine Equating Method Scholastic Aptitude Test Three Parameter Model Tucker Common Item Equating Method
Form/genre Reports, Evaluative.  |  Speeches/Meeting Papers.
Available From ERIC 
000 03210cam a22004212u 4500
001 5505244
005 20181022120411.0
007 he u||024||||
008 080220s1989    xxu ||| bt    ||| | eng d
035 |9(ericd)ED308204
037 |aED308204|bERIC
040 |aericd|beng|cericd|dMvI
091 |amfm
100 1 |aLivingston, Samuel A.
245 1 0 |aWhat Combination of Sampling and Equating Methods Works Best?|h[microform] :|bRevised /|cSamuel A. Livingston and Others.
260 |a[Washington, D.C.] :|bDistributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,|c1989.
300 |a27 p.
500 |aSponsoring Agency: Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.|5ericd
500 |aERIC Note: Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, March 27-31, 1989).|5ericd
520 |aCombinations 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: (1) the Tucker method; (2) the Levine method; (3) the chained equipercentile method; (4) the frequency estimation; and (5) an item response theory (IRT) method; specifically, the three-parameter logistic model. The tests were the verbal and mathematics 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 of 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 and Levine methods tended to agree with each other and were inconsistent in the direction of their bias. Five tables and four figures present study data. (Author/SLD)
530 |aMay also be available online. Address as at 14/8/18:|uhttps://eric.ed.gov/
533 |aMicrofiche.|b[Washington D.C.]:|cERIC Clearinghouse|emicrofiches : positive.
650 1 7 |aComparative Analysis.|2ericd
650 0 7 |aData Collection.|2ericd
650 1 7 |aEquated Scores.|2ericd
650 1 7 |aHigh School Students.|2ericd
650 0 7 |aHigh Schools.|2ericd
650 0 7 |aLatent Trait Theory.|2ericd
650 1 7 |aResearch Methodology.|2ericd
650 1 7 |aSampling.|2ericd
650 0 7 |aStatistical Analysis.|2ericd
650 0 7 |aTest Bias.|2ericd
650 0 7 |aTest Format.|2ericd
653 0 |aEquipercentile Equating|aFrequency Estimation Equipercentile Equating|aLarge Scale Programs|aLevine Equating Method|aScholastic Aptitude Test|aThree Parameter Model|aTucker Common Item Equating Method
655 7 |aReports, Evaluative.|2ericd
655 7 |aSpeeches/Meeting Papers.|2ericd
856 4 1 |uhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED308204
984 |aANL|cmc 2253 ED308204|d77000000312355
close Can I borrow items from the Library?

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video embedded.

You can view this on the NLA website.

close What can I get online?

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video embedded.

You can view this on the NLA website.

close Can I get copies of items from the Library?

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video embedded.

You can view this on the NLA website.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flags
Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and other First Nations people are advised that this catalogue contains names, recordings and images of deceased people and other content that may be culturally sensitive. Please also be aware that you may see certain words or descriptions in this catalogue which reflect the author’s attitude or that of the period in which the item was created and may now be considered offensive.