PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2018, Vol. 14(2) 148-160

The Effect of Mini and Midi Anchor Tests on Test Equating

Çiğdem Akın Arıkan & Selahattin Gelbal

pp. 148 - 160   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.11   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1712-15-0002

Published online: April 25, 2018  |   Number of Views: 133  |  Number of Download: 244


Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to compare the test forms to the midi anchor test and the mini anchor test performance based on item response theory. The research was conducted with using simulated data which were generated based on Rasch model. In order to equate two test forms the anchor item nonequivalent groups (internal anchor test) was used in this research.  The data were generated and analyzed using the R software. 100 replications were done for each different condition. The results obtained from this simulation study were evaluated according to the equating error (RMSE) and bias (BIAS) criterions. In the study, midi anchor generally produced better equating results than the mini anchor test with a few exceptions for most conditions.

Keywords: test equating, anchor test design, equating error, bias


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Arikan, C.A. & Gelbal, S. (2018). The Effect of Mini and Midi Anchor Tests on Test Equating. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), 148-160. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.11

Harvard
Arikan, C. and Gelbal, S. (2018). The Effect of Mini and Midi Anchor Tests on Test Equating. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), pp. 148-160.

Chicago 16th edition
Arikan, Cigdem Akin and Selahattin Gelbal (2018). "The Effect of Mini and Midi Anchor Tests on Test Equating". International Journal of Progressive Education 14 (2):148-160. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.11.

References
  1. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 508–600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. [Google Scholar]
  2. Antal, J.,Proctor, T. P. &Melican, G.C., (2014). The effect of anchor test construction on scaledrift. Applied Measurement in Education, 27: 159–172, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Budescu, D. (1985). Efficiency of linear equating as a function of the length of the anchor test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(1), 13-20.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, H. I.,&Holland, P. W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis Of some ETS equating procedures. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9–49). New York, NY: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook, L. L.,&Eignor, D. R. (1991). An NCME instructional module on IRT equating methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 37-45. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cui, Z. (2006). Two new alternative smoothing methods in equating: The cubic B-spline presmoothing methodand the direct presmoothing method. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. [Google Scholar]
  7. Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fitzpatrick, J.,& Skorupski, W. P. (2016). Equating with midi tests using IRT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(2), 172-189. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hagge, S. L. (2010). The impact of equating method and format representation of anchor items on the adequacy of mixed-format test equating using nonequivalent groups (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa. Iowa city. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston: Academic Puslishers Group.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Hambleton, R. K.,Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hanson, B. A. &Beguin, A. A. (2002). Obtaining a anchor scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the anchor-item equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(1), 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harris, D. J.,& Crouse, J. D. (1993). A study of criteria used in equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 195–240.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Niyazi Karasar. (2007). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim, S.-H.,&Cohen, A. S. (2002). A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 25-41. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim, H.Y., (2014). A comparison of smoothing methods for the anchor item nonequivalent groups design. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa. Iowa city. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kolen, M. J. (1988). An NCME instructional module on traditional equating methodology. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 29-36.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Kolen, M. J.,&Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and Practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kolen, M. J. (2007). Data collection designs and linking procedures. Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 31-55). New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, J.,Sinharay, S., Holland, P. W., Curley, E., & Feigenbaum, M. (2011a). Test score equating using a mini-version anchor and a midi anchor: A case studyusing SAT data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48, 361–379. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, J.,Sinharay, S., Holland, P., Feigenbaum, M., & Curley, E. (2011b). Observed score equating using a mini-version anchor and an anchor with less spread of difficulty: A comparison study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 346–361. [Google Scholar]
  22. Livingston, S. A. (2004). Equating test scores (without IRT). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nozawa, Y. (2008). Comparison of parametric and nonparametric IRT equating methods under the anchor-item nonequivalent groups design. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. Iowa city. [Google Scholar]
  24. Norman-Dvorak, R. L. (2009). A comparison of kernel equating to the test characteristic curve method. (Unpublished doctorate thesis), University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. [Google Scholar]
  25. Petersen, N.S.,Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming and equating. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 221-262). New York: American Council on Education.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Rizopoulos, D. (2015). Package 'ltm'. [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ltm/ltm.pdf, Erişim tarihi: Ekim 2016.]  [Google Scholar]
  27. Sinharay, S.,Haberman, S., Holland, P., &Lewis, C. (2012). A note on the choice of an anchor test in equating. ETS Research Report RR-12-14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sinharay, S.,&Holland, P. (2006). The correlation between the scores of a test and an anchor test. ETS Research Report RR-06-04. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sinharay, S.,&Holland, P. W. (2007). Is it necessary to make anchor tests mini-versions of [Google Scholar]
  30. the tests being equated or can some restrictions be relaxed? Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 249–275. [Google Scholar]
  31. Speron, E. (2009). A comparison of metric linking procedures in Item Response Theory. (Unpublished doctorate thesis), University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tong, Y.,&Kolen, M. (2005). Assessing equating results on different equating criteria. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29 (6), 418-432. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhu, W. (1998). Test equating: What, why, how?.Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 69(1), 11-23. [Google Scholar]