NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ929432
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2009
Pages: 27
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 27
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-1536-6367
An Empirical Comparison of Five Linear Equating Methods for the NEAT Design
Suh, Youngsuk; Mroch, Andrew A.; Kane, Michael T.; Ripkey, Douglas R.
Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, v7 n3-4 p147-173 2009
In this study, a data base containing the responses of 40,000 candidates to 90 multiple-choice questions was used to mimic data sets for 50-item tests under the "nonequivalent groups with anchor test" (NEAT) design. Using these smaller data sets, we evaluated the performance of five linear equating methods for the NEAT design with five levels of group differences and five levels of form differences. The completeness of the data base, with all 40,000 candidates answering all 90 items, allowed us to use a linear equating relationship based on a single group design for the full data base as the criterion for evaluating equating methods with respect to bias, root mean squared difference (RMSD), and differences associated with slopes. All five methods worked well when groups were similar, regardless of form differences, and the Levine methods showed smaller levels of bias and RMSD values than the other methods across a range of group differences. Overall, the Levine methods were most effective in controlling for group differences and, in particular, were most accurate when group differences were moderate to large. (Contains 11 figures, 6 tables, and 19 footnotes.)
Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A