Various applications of item response theory often require linking to achieve a common scale for item parameter estimates obtained from different groups. This article used a simulation to examine the relative performance of four different item response theory (IRT) linking procedures in a random groups equating design: concurrent calibration with multiple groups, separate calibration with the Stocking-Lord method, separate calibration with the Haebara method, and proficiency transformation. The simulation conditions used in this article included three sampling designs, two levels of sample size, and two levels of the number of items. In general, the separate calibration procedures performed better than the concurrent calibration and proficiency transformation procedures, even though some inconsistent results were observed across different simulation conditions. Some advantages and disadvantages of the linking procedures are discussed. (Contains 2 footnotes, 8 tables, and 3 figures.)