The effects of reducing correlation of external anchors on test equating methods for the equivalent groups and non-equivalent groups designs

Abstract

Six equating methods were compared: a one-parameter Item Response Theory (IRT) method; two equipercentile methods (direct and by frequency estimation); and three linear methods (Tucker, Levine Equally Reliable and Levine Unequally Reliable) in a situation in which different forms were administered to different groups, thus necessitating the use of an anchor test. The groups were simulated as either equivalent groups or groups of variable ability representing the two types of class groupings that can exist in schools (i.e. parallel or streamed classes). The correlation between the ability measured by an external anchor and the tests to be equated was systematically manipulated. A discrepancy index summarised the discrepancy of each equating method from an IRT criterion, an equipercentile criterion, and from each other. Large discrepancies were interpreted with the aid of graphs and discussed in terms of examinee indifference to the alternative transformations. The direct equipercentile and Levine Unequally Reliable methods were the only methods that consistently increased their level of the discrepancy from criterion following reduction in correlation for the two equatings examined in the equivalent groups design. For the non-equivalent groups design, a reduction in correlation resulted in a systematic effect in favour of those taking an easier form (usually the less able) for all equating methods. What was observed, however, was that for small reductions in correlation, the discrepancy of some of the equating methods from the IRT criterion was reduced. The implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations made for further work.