How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods?

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

View/Download File

Persistent link to this item

Statistics
View Statistics

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Title

How well do the Angoff Design V linear equating methods compare with the Tucker and Levine methods?

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

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.