Comparison of the One- and Bi-Direction Chained Equipercentile Equating.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Comparison of the One- and Bi-Direction Chained Equipercentile Equating.
Authors:	Oh, Hyeonjoo¹, Moses, Tim¹
Source:	Journal of Educational Measurement. Winter2012, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p399-418. 20p. 5 Black and White Photographs, 12 Charts.
Subject Terms:	Educational tests & measurements, Rating of students, Percentiles, Equations
Abstract:	This study investigated differences between two approaches to chained equipercentile (CE) equating (one- and bi-direction CE equating) in nearly equal groups and relatively unequal groups. In one-direction CE equating, the new form is linked to the anchor in one sample of examinees and the anchor is linked to the reference form in the other sample. In bi-direction CE equating, the anchor is linked to the new form in one sample of examinees and to the reference form in the other sample. The two approaches were evaluated in comparison to a criterion equating function (i.e., equivalent groups equating) using indexes such as root expected squared difference, bias, standard error of equating, root mean squared error, and number of gaps and bumps. The overall results across the equating situations suggested that the two CE equating approaches produced very similar results, whereas the bi-direction results were slightly less erratic, smoother (i.e., fewer gaps and bumps), usually closer to the criterion function, and also less variable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Educational Measurement is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	This study investigated differences between two approaches to chained equipercentile (CE) equating (one- and bi-direction CE equating) in nearly equal groups and relatively unequal groups. In one-direction CE equating, the new form is linked to the anchor in one sample of examinees and the anchor is linked to the reference form in the other sample. In bi-direction CE equating, the anchor is linked to the new form in one sample of examinees and to the reference form in the other sample. The two approaches were evaluated in comparison to a criterion equating function (i.e., equivalent groups equating) using indexes such as root expected squared difference, bias, standard error of equating, root mean squared error, and number of gaps and bumps. The overall results across the equating situations suggested that the two CE equating approaches produced very similar results, whereas the bi-direction results were slightly less erratic, smoother (i.e., fewer gaps and bumps), usually closer to the criterion function, and also less variable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00220655
DOI:	10.1111/j.1745-3984.2012.00183.x