Test equating, scaling, and linking. Methods and practices

117 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Problem With “Proficiency”: Limitations of Statistics and Policy Under No Child Left Behind (2008, background): “Cut-score-invariant alternatives like average gain scores are appealing but require development and dissemination of vertical scales—a unique challenge (Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”
Preservice Biology Teachers’ Professional Knowledge: Structure and Learning Opportunities (2015, methodology): “To ensure that test results could be compared, a linking between booklets was established (Frey, Hartig, & Rupp, 2009; Kolen & Brennan, 2004); this is called a common-item nonequivalent groups design (Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”
Robustness to Format Effects of IRT Linking Methods for Mixed-Format Tests (2006, methodology): “The common-item set should be proportionally representative of the total test forms in content and statistical characteristics (Kolen & Brennan, 2004); thus, it should contain both MC and CR items.”
A Nonparametric Framework for Comparing Trends and Gaps Across Tests (2009, methodology): “I assume for now that test score distributions have been smoothed using one of many possible techniques (Kolen & Brennan, 2004) or ‘‘continuized’’ as by von Davier, Holland, and Thayer’s (2004) kernel method.”