Issues in conducting linkages between distinct tests

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 247-273

  Pommerich, Mary ^a,d   Hanson, Bradley A ^b   Harris, Deborah J ^c   Sconing, James A ^c  

^a Defense Manpower Data Center   (United States)

^b CTB MCGRAW HILL   (United States)

^c ACT INC   (United States)

^d DoD Center Monterey Bay   (United States)

Author keywords

Concordance; Equating; Equipercentile methods; Linking; Prediction

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042674821     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621604265033     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Angoff, W. A. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 508-600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Cizek, G. J., Kenney, P. A., Kolen, M. J., Peters, C. W., & van der Linden, W. J. (1999). Final report of the study group investigating the feasibility of linking scores on the proposed Voluntary National Tests and the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
3. Dorans, N. J. (2004). Equating, concordance and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 227-246.
4. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (2000). Population invariance and the equatability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 281-306.
5. Dorans, N. J., Lyu, C. F., Pommerich, M., & Houston, W. M. (1997). Concordance between ACT Assessment and recentered SAT I sum scores. College and University, 73, 24-34.
6. Educational Testing Service. (2000). Computer-based TOEFL score user guide. Princeton, NJ: Author.
7. Ercikan, K. (1997). Linking statewide tests to the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Accuracy of combining test results across states. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 145-159.
8. Feuer, M. J., Holland, P. W., Green, B. F., Bertenthal, M. W., & Hemphill, F. C. (1999). Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. Hanson, B. A., Harris, D. J., Pommerich, M., Sconing, J. A., & Yi, Q. (2001). Suggestions for the evaluation and use of concordance results (ACT Research Report No. 2001-1). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
10. Hanson, B. A., Zeng, L., & Colton, D. (1994). A comparison of presmoothing and postsmoothing methods in equipercentile equating (Research Report No. 94-4). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
11. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1987). Notes on the use of log-linear models for fining discrete probability distributions (Research Report No. 87-31). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1989). The kernel method of equating score distributions (Research Report No. 89-7). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Houston, W. M., & Sawyer, R. (1991). Relating scores on the Enhanced ACT Assessment and the SAT test batteries. College and University, 66, 195-200.
14. Kolen, M. J. (1984). Effectiveness of analytic smoothing in equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9, 25-44.
15. Kolen, M. J. (1991). Smoothing methods for estimating test score distributions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 257-282.
16. Kolen, M. J. (2001). Linking assessments effectively: Purpose and design. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 5-9.
17. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
18. Linn, R. L. (1993). Linking results of distinct assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 83-102.
19. Linn, R. L., & Kiplinger, V. L. (1995). Linking statewide tests to the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Stability of results. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 135-155.
20. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Lord, F. M. (1982). The standard error of equipercentile equating. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 165-174.
22. Marco G. L., Abdel-fattah, A. A., & Baron, P. A. (1992). Methods used to establish score comparability on the Enhanced ACT Assessment and the SAT. (College Board Report No. 92-3; ETS RR No. 92-25). New York: The College Board.
23. Mislevy, R. J. (1992). Linking educational assessments: Concepts, issues, methods, and prospects. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center.
24. Pommerich, M., Hanson, B. A., Harris, D. J., & Sconing, J. A. (2000). Issues in creating and reporting concordance results based on equipercentile methods (ACT Research Report No. 2000-1). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
25. Williams, V. S. L., Rosa, K. R., McLeod, L. D., Thissen, D., & Sanford, E. E. (1998). Projecting to the NAEP scale: Results from the North Carolina End-of-Grade Testing Program. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 277-296.
26. Yin, P., Brennan, R. L., & Kolen, M. J. (2004). Concordance between ACT and ITED scores from different populations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(4), 274-289.