Equating Subscores under the Nonequivalent Anchor Test (NEAT) Design

Abstract

The study examined two approaches for equating subscores. They are (1) equating subscores using internal common items as the anchor to conduct the equating, and (2) equating subscores using equated and scaled total scores as the anchor to conduct the equating. Since equated total scores are comparable across the new and old forms, they can be used as an anchor to equate the subscores. Both chained linear and chained equipercentile methods were used. Data from two tests were used to conduct the study and results showed that when more internal common items were available (i.e., 10–12 items), then using common items to equate the subscores is preferable. However, when the number of common items is very small (i.e., five to six items), then using total scaled scores to equate the subscores is preferable. For both tests, not equating (i.e., using raw subscores) is not reasonable as it resulted in a considerable amount of bias.