SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

Investigation of the Performance of Multidimensional Equating Procedures for Common-Item Nonequivalent Groups Design

Çok Boyutlu Eşitleme Yöntemlerinin Eşdeğer Olmayan Gruplarda Ortak Madde Deseni için Performanslarının İncelenmesi

Burcu ATAR
Gonca YEŞİLTAŞ
Pages
421–434
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)

It was found that Stocking-Lord procedure provided the smaller RMSE and BIAS values for both item discrimination and item difficulty parameter estimates across most conditions

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the performance of the multidimensional extentions of Stocking-Lord, mean/mean, and mean/sigma equating procedures under common-item nonequivalent groups design was investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The performance of those three equating procedures was examined under the combination of various conditions including sample size, ability distribution, correlation between two dimensions, and percentage of anchor items in the test.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that Stocking-Lord procedure provided the smaller RMSE and BIAS values for both item discrimination and item difficulty parameter estimates across most conditions
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the performance of the multidimensional extentions of Stocking-Lord, mean/mean, and mean/sigma equating procedures under common-item nonequivalent groups design was investigated. The performance of those three equating procedures was examined under the combination of various conditions including sample size, ability distribution, correlation between two dimensions, and percentage of anchor items in the test. Item parameter recovery was evaluated calculating RMSE (root man squared error) and BIAS values. It was found that Stocking-Lord procedure provided the smaller RMSE and BIAS values for both item discrimination and item difficulty parameter estimates across most conditions

Özet

Bu çalışmada çok boyutlu veri için adapte edilen Stocking-Lord, ortlama/ortlama ve ortalama/sigma eşitleme yöntemlerinin performansları eşdeğer olmayan gruplarda ortak madde deseni göz önüne alınarak incelenmiştir. Bu üç eşitleme yöntemin performansları orneklem büyüklüğünün, yetenek dağılımının, boyutlar arasındaki korelasyon değerlerinin ve testteki ortak madde yüzdelerinin kombinasyonlari altinda araştırılmıştır. Madde parametre kestirimlerinin değerlendirilmesinde RMSE ve yanlılık değerleri kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada çoğu koşul icin hem madde ayırt edicilik parametre kestirimlerinde hem de madde güçlük parametre kestirimlerinde Stocking-Lord yönteminin diger iki yönteme gore daha kucuk RMSE ve yanlılık değerleri verdiği bulunmuştur

🔖

Cite This Article

ATAR, B., YEŞİLTAŞ, G. (2022). Investigation of the Performance of Multidimensional Equating Procedures for Common-Item Nonequivalent Groups Design. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 421–434. https://ajindex.com/articles/497222

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
  2. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equaivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp.508-600).
  3. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. (Reprinted as W. H. Angoff, Scales, norm, and equivalent scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1984).
  4. Bolt, D. M. (1999). Evaluating the effects of multidimensionality on IRT true score equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(4), 383-407.
  5. Camilli, G., Wang, M., & Fesq, J. (1995). The effects of dimensionality on equating the law school admission test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32(1), 79-96.
  6. Davey, T., Oshima, T. C., & Lee, K. (1996). Linking multidimensional item calibrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(3), 221-224.
  7. De Champlain, A. F. (1996). The effect of multidimensionality on IRT true-score equating for subgroups of examinees. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(2), 181-201.
  8. Eser, D. Ç. & Gelbal, S. (2015). Examining parameter estimations of simple and complex structured tests with various dimensionality properties based on multidimensional item response theory. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 6(2), 331-350.
  9. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley. Hirsch, T. M. (1989). Multidimensional equating. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(4), 337-349.
  10. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag. Levine, R. (1955). Equating the score scales of alternate forms administered to samples of different ability (Research Bulletin, 55-23).
  11. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Li, Y. H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2000). An evaluation of the accuracy of multidimensional IRT linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(2), 115-138.
  12. Livingston, S. A., Dorans, N. J., & Wright, N. K. (1990). What combination of sampling and equating methods works best? Applied Measurement in Education, 3(1), 73-95.
  13. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Skaggs, G., & Lissitz, R. W. (1986). IRT test equating: Relevant issues and a review of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 495-529.
  14. Yao, L. (2003). BMIRT: Bayesian multivariate item response theory [Comp