Anchor test type and population invariance: An exploration across subpopulations and test administrations

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 81-97

  Dorans, Neil J ^a   Liu, Jinghua ^a   Hammond, Shelby ^b  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^b Rural Vermont   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchor test; Linear equating; Population invariance; Selection variable

Indexed keywords

EID: 37249007149     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621607311580     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Angoff, W.H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2 nd ed., pp. 508-600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Dorans, N. J. (Ed.). (1990). Selecting samples for equating: To match or not to match [Special issue]. Applied Measurement in Education, 3 ( 1 ).
3. Dorans, N. J. (Ed.). (2004 a). Assessing the population sensitivity of equating functions [Special issue]. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41 ( 1 ).
4. Dorans, N.J. (2004 b). Using subpopulation invariance to assess test score equity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 43-68.
5. Dorans, N.J., Liu, J., & Hammond, S. (2006). The role of the anchor test in achieving population invariance across subpopulations and test administrations. In A. A. von Davier & M. Liu (Eds.), Population invariance of test equating and linking: Theory extension and applications across exams (pp. 131-160). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
6. Dorans, N.J., & Holland, P.W. (2000). Population invariance and equatability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 281-306.
7. Eignor, D.R., Stocking, M.L., & Cook, L.L. (1990). Simulation results of the effects on linear and curvilinear observed- and true-score equating procedures of matching on a fallible criterion. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 37-52.
8. Holland, P.W. (2004). Three methods of linear equating for the NEAT design. Unpublished manuscript.
9. Kolen, M.J. (1990). Does matching in equating work? A discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 97-104.
10. Kolen, M.J. (2004). Population invariance in equating: Concept and history. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 3-14.
11. Kolen, M.J., & Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2 nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12. Lawrence, I.M., & Dorans, N.J. (1988). A comparison of observed score and true score equating methods for representative samples and samples matched on an anchor test (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-88-23). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Lawrence, I.M., & Dorans, N.J. (1990). A comparison of several equating methods for representative samples and samples matched on an anchor test. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 19-36.
14. Liu, M. & Holland, P.W. (2008). Exploring Population Sensitivity of Linking Functions Across Three Law School Admission Test Administrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 27-44.
15. Livingston, S.A., Dorans, N.J., & Wright, N.K. (1990). What combination of sampling and equating methods works best? Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 73-95.
16. Lord, F.M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Petersen, N.S., Marco, G.L., & Stewart, E.E. (1982). A test of the adequacy of linear score equating models. In P. W. Holland & D. R. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating. New York: Academic Press.
18. Pommerich, M., & Dorans, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Concordance [Special issue]. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28 ( 4 ).
19. Schmitt, A.P., Cook, L.L., Dorans, N.J., & Eignor, D.R. (1990). The sensitivity of equating results to different sampling strategies. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 53-71.
20. Skaggs, G. (1990). To match or not to match samples on ability for equating: A discussion of five articles. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 105-113.
21. von Davier, A.A., Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (2004 a). The chain and post-stratification methods for observed-score equating and their relationship to population invariance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 15-32.
22. von Davier, A.A., Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (2004 b). The kernel method of test equating. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. von Davier, A.A., & Wilson, C. (2008). Investigating the Population Sensitivity Assumption of Item Response Theory True-Score Equating Across Two Subgroups of Examinees and Two Test Formats. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 11-26.
24. Wright, N.K., & Dorans, N.J. (1993). Using the selection variable for matching or equating (ETS Research Rep. No. RR-93-04). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25. Yang, W.-L. (2004). Sensitivity of linkings between AP multiple-choice scores and composite scores to geographical region: An illustration of checking for population invariance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 33-41.
26. Yang, W.-L., & Gao, R. (2008). Invariance of Score Linkings Across Gender Groups for Forms of a Testlet-Based College-Level Examination Program Examination. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 45-61.
27. Yi, Q., Harris, D.J., & Gao, X. (2008). Invariance of Equating Functions Across Different Subgroups of Examinees Taking a Science Achievement Test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 62-80.
28. Yin, P., Brennan, R.L., & Kolen, M.J. (2004). Concordance between ACT and ITED scores from different populations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 274-289.