National Library of Australia

Enjoy a CovidSafe visit to the National Library. Read more...

<< 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 

Online

In the Library

Request this item to view in the Library's reading rooms using your library card. To learn more about how to request items watch this short online video Help Video.

Details Collect From
mc 2253 ED308204 Main Reading Room - Newspapers and Family History
This item may be online. Please search the ERIC website prior to requesting this microfiche item.

Order a copy

- Copyright or permission restrictions may apply. We will contact you if necessary.

Help Video To learn more about Copies Direct watch this short online video Help Video.
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.