Direct and Indirect Equating [electronic resource] : A Comparison of Four Methods Using the Rasch Model / Carol A. Morrison and Steven J. Fitzpatrick.

An attempt was made to determine which item response theory (IRT) equating method results in the least amount of equating error or "scale drift" when equating scores across one or more test forms. An internal anchor test design was employed with five different test forms, each consisting o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Online Access: Full Text (via ERIC)
Main Author: Morrison, Carol A.
Corporate Author: University of Texas at Austin. Measurement and Evaluation Center
Other Authors: Fitzpatrick, Steven J.
Format: Electronic eBook
Language:English
Published: [S.l.] : Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 1992.
Subjects:

MARC

LEADER 00000nam a22000002u 4500
001 b6238076
003 CoU
005 20080220152033.2
006 m d f
007 cr un
008 920501s1992 xx |||| ot ||| | eng d
035 |a (ERIC)ed375152 
040 |a ericd  |c ericd  |d MvI 
088 |a RB-91-3 
099 |f ERIC DOC #  |a ED375152 
099 |f ERIC DOC #  |a ED375152 
100 1 |a Morrison, Carol A. 
245 1 0 |a Direct and Indirect Equating  |h [electronic resource] :  |b A Comparison of Four Methods Using the Rasch Model /  |c Carol A. Morrison and Steven J. Fitzpatrick. 
260 |a [S.l.] :  |b Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,  |c 1992. 
300 |a 17 p. 
500 |a ERIC Document Number: ED375152. 
520 |a An attempt was made to determine which item response theory (IRT) equating method results in the least amount of equating error or "scale drift" when equating scores across one or more test forms. An internal anchor test design was employed with five different test forms, each consisting of 30 items, 10 in common with the base test and 5 to 10 in common with one or more other forms. Simulated data were generated for each using the Rasch model. Using one form as the base test, each of the others was equated directly to the base test and equated through one or more others to the base test. Equating methods examined were: (1) concurrent calibration; (2) equating constant procedure; (3) major axis procedure; and (4) fixed bs procedure. When equating error was assessed, it was found that concurrent calibration resulted in the least amount of equating error overall. When concurrent calibration is not feasible, results indicate that major axis equating results in the least amount of equating error when equating across one or more forms. (Contains 5 references, 6 tables, and 1 figure.) (Author/SLD) 
650 0 7 |a Comparative Analysis.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Computer Simulation.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Equated Scores.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Error of Measurement.  |2 ericd. 
650 1 7 |a Item Response Theory.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Scaling.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Statistical Studies.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Test Format.  |2 ericd. 
650 0 7 |a Test Theory.  |2 ericd. 
700 1 |a Fitzpatrick, Steven J. 
710 2 |a University of Texas at Austin.  |b Measurement and Evaluation Center. 
856 4 0 |u http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED375152.pdf  |z Full Text (via ERIC) 
907 |a .b6238076x  |b 07-06-22  |c 10-10-10 
998 |a web  |b 10-24-12  |c f  |d m   |e -  |f eng  |g xx   |h 0  |i 1 
956 |a ERIC 
999 f f |i 68d836fd-d81f-50e3-8c80-b1499215cc08  |s 1b37a3ec-3a60-5827-a24d-2db10b2e597e 
952 f f |p Can circulate  |a University of Colorado Boulder  |b Online  |c Online  |d Online  |e ED375152  |h Other scheme  |i web  |n 1