COMPARISON OF 15 EQUATING METHODS

Abstract

Abstract: This is a comparative research of 15 equating methods, 4 based on Classical Testing Theory (CTT) and 11 based on Item Response Theory (IRT), using HSK real data. A relative reliable criterion was established. This research concluded: 1) the equating was not always the best choice; 2) some IRT based equating methods could be used in item bank development; 3) neither one, two or three parameter models, neither ms or mm methods, IRT parameter transfer methods could be used in HSK equating for these methods resulted in significant errors.

Key words: test equating, psychometrics, educational measurement, item response theory

Xie Xiaoqing (Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing 100083). (2000). COMPARISON OF 15 EQUATING METHODS. , 32(02), 217-222.

[1]	REN He, CHEN Ping. Two new termination rules for multidimensional computerized classification testing [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(9): 1044-1058.
[2]	ZHAN Peida, JIAO Hong, MAN Kaiwen. The multidimensional log-normal response time model: An exploration of the multidimensionality of latent processing speed [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(9): 1132-1142.
[3]	LIU Yue, LIU Hongyun. Reporting overall scores and domain scores of bi-factor models [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(9): 1234-1246.
[4]	CHEN Ping. Two new online calibration methods for computerized adaptive testing [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(9): 1184-1198.
[5]	MENG Xiangbin; TAO Jian; CHEN Shali. Warm’sweighted maximum likelihood estimation of latent trait in the four-parameter logistic model [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 1047-1056.
[6]	WANG Wenyi;SONG Lihong;DING Shuliang. Classification accuracy and consistency indices for complex decision rules in multidimensional item response theory [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(12): 1612-1624.
[7]	ZHAN Peida; CHEN Ping; BIAN Yufang. Using confirmatory compensatory multidimensional IRT models to do cognitive diagnosis [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(10): 1347-1356.
[8]	ZHAN Peida; LI Xiaomin; WANG Wen-Chung; BIAN Yufang; WANG Lijun. The Multidimensional Testlet-Effect Cognitive Diagnostic Models [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(5): 689-701.
[9]	YAO Ruosong;ZHAO Baonan;LIU Ze;MIAO Qunying. The Application of Many-Facet Rasch Model in Leaderless Group Discussion [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(9): 1039-1049.
[10]	LIU Yue;LIU Hongyun. Comparison of MIRT Linking Methods for Different Common Item Designs [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(4): 466-480 .
[11]	DU Wenjiu;ZHOU Juan;LI Hongbo. The Item Parameters’ Estimation Accuracy of Two-Parameter Logistic Model [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(10): 1179-1186.
[12]	LIU Hong-Yun,LI Chong,ZHANG Ping-Ping,LUO Fang. Testing Measurement Equivalence of Categorical Items’ Threshold/Difficulty Parameters: A Comparison of CCFA and (M)IRT Approaches [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(8): 1124-1136.
[13]	LIU Hong-Yun,LUO Fang,WANG Yue,ZHANG Yu. Item Parameter Estimation for Multidimensional Measurement: Comparisons of SEM and MIRT Based Methods [J]. , 2012, 44(1): 121-132.
[14]	TU Dong-Bo,CAI Yan,DAI Hai-Qi,DING Shu-Liang. Parameters Estimation of MIRT Model and Its Application in Psychological Tests [J]. , 2011, 43(11): 1329-1340.
[15]	WU Rui,DING Shu-Liang,GAN Deng-Wen. Test Equating with Testlets [J]. , 2010, 42(03): 434-442.

COMPARISON OF 15 EQUATING METHODS

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments