KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Method

Çiğdem AKIN ARIKAN
Selahattin GELBAL
Sayfa
417–427
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It is concluded that Kernel equatingmethods are relatively more the most appropriate equating method methodthan traditional equating methods.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this study, the equated score results of the kernel equating (KE)method compared with the results of traditional equating methods—equipercentile and linear equating and 9th grade 2009 ÖBBS Form B of SocialSciences and 2009 ÖBBS Form D of Social Sciences was used under anequivalent groups (EG) design.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Study sample consists of 16.249 studentstaking booklets B and another 16.327 students taking D in that test.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It is concluded that Kernel equatingmethods are relatively more the most appropriate equating method methodthan traditional equating methods.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2009 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

In this study, the equated score results of the kernel equating (KE)method compared with the results of traditional equating methods—equipercentile and linear equating and 9th grade 2009 ÖBBS Form B of SocialSciences and 2009 ÖBBS Form D of Social Sciences was used under anequivalent groups (EG) design. Study sample consists of 16.249 studentstaking booklets B and another 16.327 students taking D in that test. Theanalysis of the test forms was carried out in four steps. First, descriptivestatistics were calculated for the data and then it was checked whether the dataobtained from the two booklets satisfy the equating conditions. In the secondstep, the booklets were equated according to methods. Lastly, the errors foreach equating methods were calculated. Kernel equating results were nearlysame to the results from the corresponding traditional equating methods. InKernel equating, when parameter h was selected as optimal, equated scoresprovided almost identical results as traditional equipercentile equating. Whenit was selected large, this time the equated scores provided results almostidentical to traditional linear equating. It is concluded that Kernel equatingmethods are relatively more the most appropriate equating method methodthan traditional equating methods.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ARIKAN, Ç. A., GELBAL, S. (2022). A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Method. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 417–427. https://ajindex.com/articles/540235

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Akhun, İ. (1984). İki korelasyon katsayısı arasındaki manidarlığın test edilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 1-7.
  2. Albano, A. D. (2016). equate: An R package for observed-score linking and equating. Journal of Statistical Software, 74(8), 1-36.
  3. Andersson, B., Branberg, K., & Wiberg, M. (2013). Performing the Kernel Method of Test Equating with the Package kequate. Journal of Statistical Software, 55(6), 1–25.
  4. Baykul, Y. (1996). İstatistik: Metodlar ve uygulamalar (3. Baskı). Ankara:
  5. Anı Yayıncılık Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (8.Baskı). Ankara:
  6. Pegem A Yayıncılık. 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. Dorans, J. N., & Holland, P. W. (2000). Population invariance and the equitability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Measurement, 37, 281-306.
  7. Eğitim, Araştırma ve Geliştirmesi Daire Başkanlığı (EARGED). (2010). Ortaöğretim ÖBBS raporu 2009.
  8. Ankara,
  9. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Grant, M. C., Zhang, L., & Damiano, I. (2009). An Evaluation of Kernel Equating: Parallel Equating With Classical Methods in the SAT Subject Tests™ Program. ETS Research Report Series, 2009 (1), i-25. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston: Academic Puslishers Group. Holland, P. W. (2007). A framework and history forscore linking. In Dorans, N.J., Pommerich, M., & Holland, P. W. (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 5-30).
  10. Springer, New York, NY. Kelecioğlu, H., & Öztürk Gübeş, N. (2013). Comparing linear equating and equipercentile equating methods using random groups design. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 227-241.
  11. Kolen, M. J. (1988). An NCME instructional module on traditional equating methodology. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 29-36.
  12. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd. ed.). New York: Springer Lee, Y. H., & von Davier, A. A. (2011). Equating through alternative kernels. In von Davier, A. (Ed.) Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking (pp. 159-173).Springer New York. Livingston, S. A. (2014). Equating test scores (without IRT), (2nd. ed.). Educational testing