Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking: Methods and Practices

By M. J. Kolen, Robert L. Brennan. 2004

1,006 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Control and Systems Engineering, Software

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df1abace88006b91c84938dae89cb8f544d5af8d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Control and Systems Engineering

In Software

Citations in the corpus

Measuring Growth With Vertical Scales (2013, methodology): “Their respective commercial test batteries, the TerraNova and the Stanford Achievement Test, were created using nationally representative samples of American students and a common item nonequivalent groups linking design (Briggs & Weeks, 2009; Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”
A Comparison of the Frequency Estimation and Chained Equipercentile Methods Under the Common-Item Nonequivalent Groups Design (2008, methodology): “…standard errors of equating, equating bias, item response theory In test equating, there are three commonly used data collection designs: the single-group design with or without counterbalancing, the random groups design, and the common-item nonequivalent groups design (Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”
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.”
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).”
Development of Short Forms from the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance and Sleep-Related Impairment Item Banks (2011, background): “The term calibration has various meanings under different contexts (Angoff, 1971; Kolen & Brennan, 2004; Linn, 1993; Lord, 1980; Thissen & Wainer, 2001).”
Contrasting OLS and Quantile Regression Approaches to Student “Growth” Percentiles (2013, neutral): “Multivariate normality is a convenient choice for modeling joint distributions of consecutive grade-level test scores, as test scales are often chosen so that each grade-level score distribution is roughly normal (Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”
Assessing Knowledge of Mathematical Equivalence: A Construct-Modeling Approach. (2011, methodology): “We used this step-by-step item-matching procedure to ensure that content would be comparable across forms, as content similarity is a prerequisite for meaningful score-equating procedures (Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”
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).”
Integrative Data Analysis: The Simultaneous Analysis of Multiple Data Sets (2009, methodology): “These shared items form a set of "anchor" items that can be of great use in later stages of measurement development (Kolen & Brennan, 2004).”