|Statement||Deborah J. Harris|
|Series||ACT research report series -- 87-5, ACT research report -- 87-5|
|Contributions||American College Testing Program|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||iii, 12,  p. ;|
|Number of Pages||42|
In this Chapter, we describe many practical issues in equating, including the importance of test development procedures, test standardization conditions, and quality control procedures. We stress conditions that are conducive to adequate equating. Also, we discuss comparability issues for mixed-format assessments and computer-based by: A main objective of this study was to investigate the impact of group differences on equating results and assumptions. However Forms A and B were taken by the same examinees. Therefore the common item effect size (ES) was exactly zero, because the common item scores were the same for the two forms. Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS) Abstract. In this chapter, a general introduction is provided, primarily in terms of a conceptual overview. M. J. (). Effect of examinee group on equating relationships. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 35– CrossRef Brennan R.L. ( Cited by: examinee samples and representative vs. non-representative anchors was compared. In terms of examinee scores, differences found in both comparisons were about one fifth of a standard deviation. It is suggested that the effect on equating of these two factors alone has been overestimated in the literature.
An equating procedure for a testing program with evolving distribution of examinee profiles is developed. No anchor is available because the original Author: Nicholas Longford. In the equating literature, a recurring concern is that equating functions that utilize a single anchor to account for examinee groups' nonequivalence are biased when the groups . Comparability Analyses (MSCA; Way, Um, Lin & McClarty, ; Way, Davis & Fitzpatrick, ). This approach utilizes covariates to create comparable online and paper groups, summarizes comparability results in the context of test equating, and can result an alternate online group score conversion table to correct for mode effects. Research Chapter 9 Text Summary Points, Tables, and Online Quiz Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.
EFFECT OF COMPARABILITY OF EXAMINEE CROUPS ON EQUATING Multiple forms of large scale assessment and certification tests are constructed from the same specifications to be as similar as possible in their statistical and content characteristics. Equating is used . The possible effect of imbalance in a prognostic factor is considered, and it is shown that non-significant imbalances can exert a strong influence on the observed result of the trial, even when the risk associated with the factor is not all that great. It is suggested that comparability should be assessed partly on the basis of clinical. Single Group Counterbalancing. Each examinee takes both forms, half in the opposite order than the others. Smaller sample size required. Requires twice the administration time. Differential order effects can still be problematic, leading to discarding the second form and unstable equating. harder form. Score equating seeks to eliminate the effects on scores of these unintended differences in test form difficulty. Score equating is necessary to be fair to examinees and to provide score users with scores that mean the same thing across different editions or forms of the test.