A comparison of three linear equating methods for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design

Woodruff, David J.
1989
Thumbnail Image

View/Download File

v13n3p257.pdf (462.23 KB)

Persistent link to this item

https://hdl.handle.net/11299/107319
Statistics
View Statistics

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Title

A comparison of three linear equating methods for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design

Authors

Published Date

1989

Publisher

Type

Article

Abstract

Three linear equating methods for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design are compared using an analytical method. The analysis investigated the behavior of the three methods when the true-score correlation between the test and anchor was less than unity, a situation that may occur in practice. The analysis is graphically illustrated using data from a test equating situation. Conclusions derived from the analysis have implications for the practical application of these equating methods. Index terms: congeneric model, Levine equating method, linear equating, Tucker equating method.

Keywords

Description

Related to

Replaces

License

Collections

Applied Psychological Measurement, Volume 13, 1989

Series/Report Number

Funding information

Isbn identifier

Doi identifier

Previously Published Citation

Woodruff, David J. (1989). A comparison of three linear equating methods for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 257-261. doi:10.1177/014662168901300305

Suggested citation

Woodruff, David J.. (1989). A comparison of three linear equating methods for the common-item nonequivalent-populations design. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/107319.

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.