SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of Kernel Equating and Kernel Local Equating in Item Response Theory Observed Score Equating

Merve YILDIRIM SEHERYELİ
Hasibe YAHSİ SARI
Hülya KELECİOĞLU
Pages
348–357
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Kernel equating can be used based on the related ability level if the individual’s ability distribution is known.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study aims to compare the Kernel equating and Kernel local equating methods in observed score equating.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, 5, 10, and 15 external anchor items were used, and scores were obtained from two forms based on the 2PL model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Kernel equating can be used based on the related ability level if the individual’s ability distribution is known.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Test equating · Kernel equating · Kernel local equating

Abstract

The present study aims to compare the Kernel equating and Kernel local equating methods in observed score equating. Functions and error estimates regarding the difference between raw and equated scores and the scores equated by Stocking-Lord and Haebara true-score equating methods in Kernel local equating and Kernel equating were examined in Item Response Theory Observed Score Equating. Therefore, 5, 10, and 15 external anchor items were used, and scores were obtained from two forms based on the 2PL model. R (version 3.5.3.) programming software was used for IRT assumptions, item parameters, calibration, and equating analyses. The results revealed that Stocking-Lord and Haebara true-score equating methods yielded similar results. Moreover, if the equating method is the same, estimation errors decreased when the number of anchor items increased. The mean scores obtained by Kernel equation 5 and 15 anchor items were lower than Kernel local equating, while means of Kernel equating of 10 anchor items were higher. As the number of items increased, estimation errors decreased, and Kernel local equating revealed the lowest errors in the medium score scale. Kernel equating can be used based on the related ability level if the individual’s ability distribution is known.

🔖

Cite This Article

SEHERYELİ, M. Y., SARI, H. Y., KELECİOĞLU, H. (2022). Comparison of Kernel Equating and Kernel Local Equating in Item Response Theory Observed Score Equating. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 4, 348–357. https://ajindex.com/articles/497168

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Akın Arıkan, Ç. (2017). Kernel eşitleme ve madde tepki kuramına dayalı eşitleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmış Doktora Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
  2. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  3. Andersson, B., & Wiberg, M. (2014). IRT observed-score kernel equating with the R package kequate. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.8712&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  4. Andersson, B., Bränberg, K., & Wiberg, M. (2020). Package ‘kequate’. Retrieved from https://mran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2020-03-08/web/packages/kequate/kequate.pdf
  5. Baker, F. B. (2016). Madde tepki kuramının temelleri [The basics of item response theory]. (N. Güler, Ed., & M. İlhan, Çev.). Ankara:
  6. Pegem Akademi. (1985)
  7. Chalmers, P., Pritikin, J., Robitzsch, A., Zoltak, M., Kim K. H., Falk C. F., …, and Oguzhan, O. (2021). Package ‘mirt’. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mirt/mirt.pdf
  8. Choi, S. I. (2009). A comparison of kernel equating and traditional equipercentile equating methods and the parametric bootstrap methods for estimating Standard errors in equipercentile equating (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Diao, H. (2018). Investigation repeater effects on small-sample equating: Include or exclude? (Doctoral thesis). University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Gök, B., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2014). Denk olmayan gruplarda ortak madde deseni kullanılarak madde tepki kuramına dayalı eşitleme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 120-136. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/161036 adresinden erişilmiştir. González, J., & Wiberg, M. (2017). Applying test equating methods: Using R. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.mat.uc.cl/~jorge.gonzalez/index_archivos/EquatingRbook.htm
  9. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in highstakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice., 23(1), 17-27. doi: 10.1111/J.1745-3992.2004.TB00149.X Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Baston: Kuluwer-Nijhoff Publisihing. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1981). Section pre‐equating the graduate record examinations (ETS Research Report Series). 1981(2), i-62. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York: Springer. Liou, M., Cheng, P. E., & Johnson, E. G. (1997). Standard errors of