NCME 2008 presidential address: The impact of anchor test configuration on student proficiency rates

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 34-40

  Fitzpatrick, Anne R ^a  

^a Educational Testing Service   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchor items; Equating; No Child Left Behind

Indexed keywords

EID: 57049174442     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2008.00137.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC : American Educational Research Association.
2. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 508 600). Washington, DC : American Council on Education.
3. Cook, L. L., Eignor, D. R., & Taft, H. L. (1988). A comparative study of the effects of recency of instruction on the stability of IRT and conventional parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25 (1 31 45.
4. Dorans, N. J. (1986). The impact of item deletion on equating conversions and reported score distributions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 245 264.
5. Dorans, N. J., & Feigenbaum, M. D. (1994). Equating issues engendered by changes to the SAT and PSAT/NMSQT (No. RM 94-10). Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
6. Haertel, E. H. (2004). The behavior of linking items in test equating. Los Angeles : Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Graduate School of Education and Information Services, University of California at Los Angeles.
7. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York : Springer-Verlag.
8. McKinley, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1981). A comparison of procedures for constructing large item pools (Research Report 81-3). Columbia, MO : University of Missouri, Department of Educational Psychology.
9. Michaelides, M. P., & Haertel, E. H. (2004). Sampling of common items: An unrecognized source of error in test equating. Los Angeles : Center for the Study of Education, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California at Los Angeles.
10. Peterson, N. S., Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. In R. L. Linn (Ed Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 221 262). New York : American Council on Education and Macmillan.
11. Peterson, N. S., Marco, G. L., & Stewart, E. E. (1982). A test of the adequacy of linear equating methods. In P. W. Holland & D. R. Rubin (Eds Test equating (pp. 71 135). New York : Academic Press.
12. Sudman, S. (1976). Applied sampling. New York : Academic Press.
13. Vale, C. D., Maurelli, V. A., Gialluca, K. A., Weiss, D. J., & Ree, M. J. (1981). Methods for linking item parameters (AFHRL-TR-81-10). Brooks Air Force Base, TX : Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.
14. Wingersky, M. S., Cook, L. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1987). Specifying the characteristics of linking items used for item response theory calibration (Research Report 87-24). Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.