Impact of Accumulated Error on Item Response Theory Pre-Equating With Mixed Format Tests

References

• Ban, J., Hanson, B., Wang, T., Yi, Q., & Harris, D. (2015). A comparative study of online pretest item calibration/scaling methods in CAT (ACT Research Report Series). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, L. L. (1982). A study of the temporal stability of IRT item parameter estimates. Washington, DC: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED219415
   Google Scholar
• Eignor, D. R. (1985). An investigation of the feasibility and practical outcomes of preequating the SAT verbal and mathematicsematical sections. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Eignor, D. R., & Cook, L. L. (1983, April). An investigation of the feasibility of using item response theory in the pre-equating of aptitude tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
   Google Scholar
• Eignor, D. R., & Stocking, M. L. (1986). An investigation of possible causes for the inadequacy of IRT pre-equating 1, 2, 3. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Gao, R., & He, W. (2012). Does preequating work? An investigation into a preequated testlet-based college placement exam using postadministration data (Educational Testing Service Research Report Number ETS RR-12-12). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, D. (1991). Effects of passage and item scrambling on equating relationships. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(3), 247–256. doi:10.1177/014662169101500304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, L. A., & Keller, R. R. (2011). The long-term sustainability of several item response theory scaling techniques. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(2), 362–379. doi:10.1177/0013164410375111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. (2006). A comparative study of IRT fixed parameter calibration methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 355–381. doi:10.1111/jedm.2006.43.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick, R., & Way, W. D. (2008, April). Field testing and equating designs for state educational assessments. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Kolen, M., & Harris, D. (1990). Comparison of item preequating and random groups equating using IRT and equipercentile methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(1), 27–39. doi:10.1111/jedm.1990.27.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston, S. A. (1984, April). Item selection and pre-equating with empirical item characteristic curves. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston, S. A. (1985, March–April). Large-sample pre-equating: How accurate? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). Parscale version 4.1 IRT item analysis and test scoring for rating-scale data. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Pommerich, M., & Harris, D. J. (2003, April). Context effects in pretesting: Impact on item statistics and examinee scores. Paper presented as the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Pommerich, M., & Segall, D. O. (2003, April). Calibrating CAT pools and online pretest items using marginal maximum likelihood methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Chicago, IL: Psychometric Society.
   Google Scholar
• Segall, D. O. (2003, April). Calibrating CAT pools and online pretest items using MCMC methods. Presented at the annual meeting of the national council on measurement in education, Chicago IL.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. L., & Lin, P. (2011). Feasibility of using IRT methods with teacher quality tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Stocking, M. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1986). The impact of different ability distributions on IRT preequating ( Educational Testing Service Research Report 86-49). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1982). Developing a common metric in item response theory ( Educational Testing Service Research Report Number ETS-RR-82-25-ONR). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Tong, Y., Wu, S.-S., & Xu, M. (2008, March). A comparison of pre-equating and post-equating using large-scale assessment data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Yen, W. (1980). The extent, causes and importance of context effects on item parameters for two latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(4), 297–311. doi:10.1111/jedm.1980.17.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar