DSpace DSpace

University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy >
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities >
Applied Psychological Measurement >
Volume 13, 1989 >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11299/107496

Title: A comparison of two observed-score equating methods that assume equally reliable, congeneric tests
Authors: MacCann, Robert G.
Issue Date: 1989
Citation: MacCann, Robert G. (1989). A comparison of two observed-score equating methods that assume equally reliable, congeneric tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 263-276. doi:10.1177/014662168901300306
Abstract: For the external-anchor test equating model, two observed-score methods are derived using the slope and intercept assumptions of univariate selection theory and the assumptions that the tests to be equated are congeneric and equally reliable. The first derivation, Method 1, is then shown to give the same set of equations as Levine’s equations for random groups and unequally reliable tests and the "Z predicting X and Y" method. The second derivation, Method 2, is shown to give the same equations as Potthoff’s (1966) Method B and the "X and Y predicting Z" method. Methods 1 and 2 are compared empirically with Tucker’s and Levine’s equations for equally reliable tests; the conditions for which they may be appropriately applied are discussed. Index terms: Angoff’s Design V equations, congeneric tests, equally reliable tests, Levine’s equations (equally reliable), linear equating, observed-score equating, test equating, Tucker’s equations.
URI: http://purl.umn.edu/107496
Appears in Collections:Volume 13, 1989

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
v13n3p263.pdf863.68 kBPDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.