How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods?
1987
Loading...
View/Download File
Persistent link to this item
Statistics
View StatisticsJournal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Title
How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods?
Alternative title
Authors
Published Date
1987
Publisher
Type
Article
Abstract
Comparisons were made of three Angoff Design V
equating methods and the Tucker and Levine Equally
Reliable methods with respect to common item linear
equating with non-equivalent populations. Forms of a
professional certification test were equated with these
five methods using (1) single-link equating of selected
pairs of forms and (2) cyclical equating of selected
forms to themselves, by means of equating chains. In
the single-link equatings, raw score equivalents given
by the Design V methods tended to fall between those
obtained by use of the Tucker and Levine methods.
The chain equatings produced similar estimated bias
and estimated root mean squared error of
score equivalents
for the five different methods.
Keywords
Description
Related to
Replaces
License
Series/Report Number
Funding information
Isbn identifier
Doi identifier
Previously Published Citation
Cope, Ronald T. (1987). How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods? Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 143-149. doi:10.1177/014662168701100202
Other identifiers
doi:10.1177/014662168701100202
Suggested citation
Cope, Ronald T.. (1987). How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods?. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/103399.
Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.