IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v8y1983i2p137-156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Irt Versus Conventional Equating Methods: A Comparative Study of Scale Stability

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy S. Petersen
  • Linda L. Cook
  • Martha L. Stocking

Abstract

Scale drift for the verbal and mathematical portions of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was investigated using linear, equipercentile and item response theory (IRT) equating methods. The linear methods investigated were the Tucker, Levine Equally Reliable and Levine Unequally Reliable models. Three IRT calibration designs were employed. These designs are referred to as (1) concurrent, (2) fixed b ’s method, and (3) characteristic curve transformation method. The results of the various equating methods were compared both graphically and analytically. These results indicated that for reasonably parallel tests, linear equating methods perform adequately. However, when tests differ somewhat in content and length, methods based on the three-parameter logistic IRT model lead to greater stability of equating results. Of the conventional equating methods investigated, the Levine Equally Reliable model appears to be the most robust for the type of equating situation used in this study. The IRT method that provided the most stable equating results overall was the concurrent calibration method.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy S. Petersen & Linda L. Cook & Martha L. Stocking, 1983. "Irt Versus Conventional Equating Methods: A Comparative Study of Scale Stability," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 8(2), pages 137-156, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:8:y:1983:i:2:p:137-156
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986008002137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986008002137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986008002137?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:8:y:1983:i:2:p:137-156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.