A previous study of pre-equating the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) using item response theory provided unacceptable equating results for SAT-mathematical data. The purpose of this study was to investigate two possible explanations for these unacceptable pre-equating results. Specifically, the calibration process, which made use of the three-parameter model and LOGIST, and the linking procedure used to place parameter estimates on the same scale were further investigated in a two stage process to see if either was responsible for the poor IRT pre-equating results found for the SAT-mathematical data in the previous study. (Author)