An NCME Instructional Module on Population Invariance in Linking and Equating

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 27-40

  Huggins, Anne C ^a   Penfield, Randall D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Equating; Invariance; Linking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858801419     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00225.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC : APA.
2. Braun, H. L., & Holland, P. W. (1982). Observed score test equating: A mathematical analysis of some ETS equating procedures. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9-49). New York : Academic Press.
3. Brennan, R. L. (2008). A discussion of population invariance. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 102-114.
4. Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 65-110). Westport, CT : Praeger.
5. Cole, N. S., & Moss, P. A. (1989). Bias in test use. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 201-219). New York : American Council on Education and Macmillan.
6. Cole, N. S., & Zieky, M. J. (2001). The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 369-382.
7. Cook, L. L., & Petersen, N. S. (1987). Problems related to the use of conventional and item response theory equating methods in less than optimal circumstances. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 225-244.
8. Dorans, N. J. (2004). Using subpopulation invariance to assess test score equity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 43-68.
9. Dorans, N. J. (2008). Three facets of fairness. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY
10. Dorans, N. J., & Feigenbaum, M. D. (1994). Equating issues engendered by changes to the SAT and PSAT/NMSQT. In I. M. Lawrence, N. J. Dorans, M. D. Feigenbaum, N. J. Feryok, A. P. Schmitt, & N. K. Wright (Eds.), Technical issues related to the introduction of the new SAT and PSAT/NMSQT. ETS Research Memorandum No. RM-94-10. Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
11. 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.
12. Dorans, N. J., & Liu, J. (2009). Score equity assessment: Development of a prototype analysis using SAT mathematics test data across several administrations. ETS Research Report No. RR-09-08. Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
13. Dorans, N. J., & Liu J. (2011). Assessing the practical equivalence of conversions. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
14. Dorans, N. J., Liu, J., & Hammond, S. (2008). Anchor test type and population invariance: An exploration across subpopulations and test administrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 81-97.
15. Dorans, N. J., & Walker, M. E. (2007). Sizing up linkages. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 179-198). New York : Springer.
16. Feuer, M. J., Holland, P. W., Green, B. F., Bertenthal, M. W., & Hemphill, F. C. (Eds.) (1999). Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
17. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
18. Holland, P. W. (2007). A framework and history for score linking. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 5-30). New York : Springer.
19. Holland, P. W., & Dorans, N. J. (2006). Linking and equating. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 187-220). Westport, CT : American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.
20. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
21. Huggins, A. C. (2010). Equating invariance for English Language Learner students on a fifth grade state science exam. Paper presented at the meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Orlando, FL
22. Joint Committee on Testing Practices (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. Washington, DC : Author.
23. Kolen, M. J. (2004). Population invariance in equating and linking: Concept and history. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 3-14.
24. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York : Springer.
25. Koretz, D. (2007). Using aggregate-level linkages for estimation and validation: Comments on Thissen and Braun & Qian. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 339-353). New York : Springer.
26. Liu, J., & Walker, M. E. (2007). Score linking issues related to test content changes. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 31-55). New York : Springer.
27. Liu, M., & Holland, P. W. (2008). Exploring population sensitivity of linking functions across three law school admissions test administrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 27-44.
28. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Lord, F. M., & Wingersky, M. S. (1984). Comparison of IRT true-score and equipercentile observed-score "equatings". Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 453-461.
30. Moses, T. P. (2006). Using the kernel method of test equating for estimating the standard error of population invariance measures. ETS Research Report No. RR-06-20. Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
31. No Child Left Behind, 20 U.S.C. § 1111 (2001).
32. Penfield, R. D., & Camilli, G. (2007). Differential item functioning and item bias. In S. Sinharay & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Handbook of statistics, Vol. 26: Psychometrics (pp. 125-167). New York : Elsevier.
33. Petersen, N. S. (2007). Equating: Best practices and challenges to best practices. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 59-72). New York : Springer.
34. Petersen, N. S. (2008). A discussion of population invariance of equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 98-101.
35. Pommerich, M. (2007). Concordance: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 199-216). New York : Springer.
36. Pommerich, M., Hanson, B. A., Harris, D. J., & Sconing, J. A. (2004). Issues in conducting linkages between distinct tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 247-273.
37. Rijmen, F., Manalo, J. R., & von Davier, A. A. (2009). Asymptotic and sampling-based standard errors for two population invariance measures in the linear equating case. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 222-237.
38. Thissen, D. (2007). Linking assessments based on aggregate reporting: Background and issues. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 287-312). New York : Springer.
39. van der Linden, W. J. (2000). A test-theoretic approach to observed-score equating. Psychometrika, 65, 437-456.
40. von Davier, A. A. (2007). Potential solutions to practical equating issues. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 89-106). New York : Springer.
41. von Davier, A. A., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (2004). The chain and post-stratification methods for observed-score equating and their relationship to population invariance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 15-32.
42. von Davier, A. A., & Manalo, J. (2006). Empirical standard errors for two population invariance measures in the linear equating case. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA
43. 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.
44. Williams, V. S., 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.
45. 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.
46. Yang, W. L., Dorans, N. J., & Tateneni, K. (2003). Sample selection effects on AP multiple-choice score to composite score scaling. In N. J. Dorans (Ed.), Population invariance of score linking: Theory and applications to advanced placement program examinations (pp. 57-78).ETS Research Report No. RR-03-27. Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing Service.
47. 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.
48. Yin, P., Brennan, R. L., & Kolen, M. J. (2004). Concordance between ACT and ITED scores from different populations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 274-289.