Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T14:11:09.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analytic Smoothing for Equipercentile Equating Under the Common Item Nonequivalent Populations Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michael J. Kolen  and
David Jarjoura
Michael J. Kolen*
Affiliation:
The American College Testing Program
David Jarjoura
Affiliation:
Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael J. Kolen, Measurement Research Department, The American College Testing Program, PO Box 168, Iowa City, IA 52243.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A cubic spline method for smoothing equipercentile equating relationships under the common item nonequivalent populations design is described. Statistical techniques based on bootstrap estimation are presented that are designed to aid in choosing an equating method/degree of smoothing. These include: (a) asymptotic significance tests that compare no equating and linear equating to equipercentile equating; (b) a scheme for estimating total equating error and for dividing total estimated error into systematic and random components. The smoothing technique and statistical procedures are explored and illustrated using data from forms of a professional certification test.

Keywords

equatingequipercentile equatingequating errorbootstrap

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 43 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The authors thank Robert L. Brennan for reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript. Most of the work was completed while the second author was at The American College Testing Program.

References

Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In Thorndike, R. L. (Eds.), Educational measurement 2nd ed.,, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Angoff, W. H. (1982). Summary and derivation of equating methods used at ETS. In Holland, P. W., Rubin, D. B. (Eds.), Test equating, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beran, R. (1984). Bootstrap methods in statistics. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereiningung, 86, 14–30.Google Scholar
Bickel, P. J., Freedman, D. A. (1981). Some asymptotic theory for the bootstrap. The Annals of Statistics, 9, 1196–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommers, P. J., Forsyth, R. A. (1977). Elementary statistical methods in psychology and education, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Braun, H. I., Holland, P. W. (1982). Observed score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In Holland, P. W., Rubin, D. B. (Eds.), Test equating, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Efron, B. (1981). Nonparametric estimates of the standard error: The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other methods. Biometrika, 68, 589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. (1982). The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans, Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D. A. (1981). Bootstrapping regression models. The Annals of Statistics, 9, 1218–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarjoura, D., Kolen, M. J. (1985). Standard errors of equipercentile equating for the common item nonequivalent populations design. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, L. W., Jarjoura, D. (1985). The importance of content representation for common-item equating with nonrandom groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolen, M. J. (1984). Effectiveness of analytic smoothing in equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolen, M. J. (1985). Standard errors of Tucker equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morrison, D. F. (1976). Multivariate statistical methods 2nd ed.,, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Petersen, N. S., Marco, G. L., Stewart, E. E. (1982). A test of the adequacy of linear score equating models. In Holland, P. W., Rubin, D. B. (Eds.), Test equating, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications 2nd ed,, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinsch, C. H. (1967). Smoothing by spline functions. Numerische Mathematik, 10, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, K. (1981). On the asymptotic accuracy of Efron's bootstrap. The Annals of Statistics, 9, 1187–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapia, R. A., Thompson, J. R. (1978). Nonparametric probability density estimation, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, S. (1985). A smooth nonparametric estimator of a quantile function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80, 1004–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar