58:(you get to practice the profession if you pass the test) may create a temptation to cheat, the organization that oversees the test creates two forms. If we know that Dick scored 60% on form A and Jane scored 70% on form B, do we know for sure which one has a better grasp of the material? What if form A is composed of very difficult items, while form B is relatively easy? Equating analyses are performed to address this very issue, so that scores are as fair as possible.
46:
linking. It is the process of equating the units and origins of two scales on which the abilities of students have been estimated from results on different tests. The process is analogous to equating degrees
Fahrenheit with degrees Celsius by converting measurements from one scale to the other. The determination of comparable scores is a by-product of equating that results from equating the scales obtained from test results.
83:; i.e., locations are estimated in relation to a unit and origin. It is common in educational assessment to employ tests in order to assess different groups of students with the intention of establishing a common scale by equating the origins, and when appropriate also the units, of the scales obtained from response data from the different tests. The process is referred to as equating or test equating.
67:
134:. There are several types of linear equating that differ in the assumptions and mathematics used to estimate parameters. The Tucker and Levine Observed Score methods estimate the relationship between observed scores on the two forms, while the Levine True Score method estimates the relationship between true scores on the two forms.
144:
Unlike with item response theory, equating based on classical test theory is somewhat distinct from scaling. Equating is a raw-to-raw transformation in that it estimates a raw score on Form B that is equivalent to each raw score on the base Form A. Any scaling transformation used is then applied on
86:
In item response theory, two different kinds of equating are horizontal and vertical equating. Vertical equating refers to the process of equating tests administered to groups of students with different abilities, such as students in different grades (years of schooling). Horizontal equating refers
45:
is the process of placing scores from two or more parallel test forms onto a common score scale. The result is that scores from two different test forms can be compared directly, or treated as though they came from the same test form. When the tests are not parallel, the general process is called
105:
equating. Common person equating involves the administration of two tests to a common group of persons. The mean and standard deviation of the scale locations of the groups on the two tests are equated using a linear transformation. Common item equating involves the use of a set of common items
70:
Figure 1: Test characteristic curves showing the relationship between total score and person location for two different tests in relation to a common scale. In this example a total of 37 on
Assessment 1 equates to a total of 34.9 on Assessment 2 as shown by the vertical
122:
of scores so that the mean of one form is comparable to the mean of the other form. While mean equating is attractive because of its simplicity, it lacks flexibility, namely accounting for the possibility that the standard deviations of the forms differ.
87:
the equating of tests administered to groups with similar abilities; for example, two tests administered to students in the same grade in two consecutive calendar years. Different tests are used to avoid practice effects.
190:
187:
94:, applicable when more than one test is used. In practice, though, scaling is often implemented separately for different tests and then the scales subsequently equated.
214:
Baker, F. (1984). Ability metric transformations involved in vertical equating under item response theory. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 8(3), 261-271.
205:
Baker, F. (1983). Comparison of ability metrics obtained under two latent trait theory procedures. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 7, 97-110.
256:
188:
http://www.ncme.org/ncme/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary/NCME/Resource_Center/Glossary1.aspx?hkey=4bb87415-44dc-4088-9ed9-e8515326a061#anchorE
226:
137:
Equipercentile equating determines the equating relationship as one where a score could have an equivalent
26:
traditionally refers to the statistical process of determining comparable scores on different forms of an
54:
Suppose that Dick and Jane both take a test to become licensed in a certain profession. Because the
90:
In terms of item response theory, equating is just a special case of the more general process of
251:
119:
79:, person "locations" (measures of some quality being assessed by a test) are estimated on an
31:
17:
231:
76:
35:
8:
55:
110:
embedded in two different tests. The mean item location of the common items is equated.
154:
131:
194:
80:
245:
236:
177:
Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (1995). Test
Equating. New York: Spring.
107:
138:
16:
For the mathematical technique of solving a functional equation, see
237:
IRTEQ:Windows
Application that Implements IRT Scaling and Equating
126:
Linear equating adjusts so that the two forms have a comparable
97:
A distinction is often made between two methods of equating;
127:
118:
In classical test theory, mean equating simply adjusts the
66:
27:
141:
on either form. This relationship can be nonlinear.
113:
61:
243:
173:
171:
169:
186:National Council on Measurement in Education
166:
65:
30:. It can be accomplished using either
244:
257:Educational assessment and evaluation
13:
14:
268:
220:
114:Classical approaches to equating
62:Equating in item response theory
145:top of, or with, the equating.
208:
199:
180:
1:
160:
7:
148:
10:
273:
49:
15:
41:In item response theory,
72:
232:Equating and AP Tests
69:
32:classical test theory
18:Equating coefficients
227:Equating and the SAT
77:item response theory
36:item response theory
106:referred to as the
193:2017-07-22 at the
155:Grading on a curve
132:standard deviation
73:
264:
215:
212:
206:
203:
197:
184:
178:
175:
272:
271:
267:
266:
265:
263:
262:
261:
242:
241:
223:
218:
213:
209:
204:
200:
195:Wayback Machine
185:
181:
176:
167:
163:
151:
116:
64:
52:
21:
12:
11:
5:
270:
260:
259:
254:
240:
239:
234:
229:
222:
221:External links
219:
217:
216:
207:
198:
179:
164:
162:
159:
158:
157:
150:
147:
115:
112:
81:interval scale
63:
60:
51:
48:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
269:
258:
255:
253:
252:Psychometrics
250:
249:
247:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
224:
211:
202:
196:
192:
189:
183:
174:
172:
170:
165:
156:
153:
152:
146:
142:
140:
135:
133:
129:
124:
121:
111:
109:
104:
100:
99:common person
95:
93:
88:
84:
82:
78:
68:
59:
57:
47:
44:
39:
37:
33:
29:
25:
24:Test equating
19:
210:
201:
182:
143:
136:
125:
120:distribution
117:
102:
98:
96:
91:
89:
85:
74:
53:
42:
40:
23:
22:
108:anchor test
103:common item
56:high stakes
246:Categories
161:References
139:percentile
191:Archived
149:See also
43:equating
92:scaling
50:Purpose
130:and
128:mean
101:and
71:line
28:exam
75:In
34:or
248::
168:^
38:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
