Premium
Test Score Equating Using a Mini‐Version Anchor and a Midi Anchor: A Case Study Using SAT ® Data
Author(s) -
Liu Jinghua,
Sinharay Sandip,
Holland Paul W.,
Curley Edward,
Feigenbaum Miriam
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of educational measurement
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.917
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1745-3984
pISSN - 0022-0655
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2011.00150.x
Subject(s) - equating , midi , test (biology) , computer science , statistics , contrast (vision) , econometrics , mathematics , artificial intelligence , paleontology , rasch model , biology , operating system
This study explores an anchor that is different from the traditional miniature anchor in test score equating. In contrast to a traditional “mini” anchor that has the same spread of item difficulties as the tests to be equated, the studied anchor, referred to as a “midi” anchor (Sinharay & Holland), has a smaller spread of item difficulties than the tests to be equated. Both anchors were administered in an operational SAT administration and the impact of anchor type on equating was evaluated with respect to systematic error or equating bias. Contradicting the popular belief that the mini anchor is best, the results showed that the mini anchor does not always produce more accurate equating functions than the midi anchor; the midi anchor was found to perform as well as or even better than the mini anchor. Because testing programs usually have more middle difficulty items and few very hard or very easy items, midi external anchors are operationally easier to build. Therefore, the results of our study provide evidence in favor of the midi anchor, the use of which will lead to cost saving with no reduction in equating quality.