Examinees who attempt the same test multiple times are often referred to as "repeaters." Previous studies suggested that repeaters should be excluded from the total sample before equating because repeater groups are distinguishable from non-repeater groups. In addition, repeaters might memorize anchor items, causing item drift under a…

Because of concerns about test security, different test forms are typically used across different testing occasions. As a result, equating is necessary in order to get scores from the different test forms that can be used interchangeably. In order to assure the quality of equating, multiple equating methods are often examined. Various equity…

This study investigates a sequence of item response theory (IRT) true score equatings based on various scale transformation approaches and evaluates equating accuracy and consistency over time. The results show that the biases and sample variances for the IRT true score equating (both direct and indirect) are quite small (except for the mean/sigma…

The standard error of equating quantifies the variability in the estimation of an equating function. Because common items for deriving equated scores are treated as fixed, the only source of variability typically considered arises from the estimation of common-item parameters from responses of samples of examinees. Use of alternative, equally…

This paper investigates four methods of linear equating under the common item nonequivalent groups design. Three of the methods are well known: Tucker, Angoff-Levine, and Congeneric-Levine. A fourth method is presented as a variant of the Congeneric-Levine method. Using simulation data generated from the three-parameter logistic IRT model we…

This article proposes that sampling design effects have potentially huge unrecognized impacts on the results reported by large-scale district and state assessments in the United States. When design effects are unrecognized and unaccounted for they lead to underestimating the sampling error in item and test statistics. Underestimating the sampling…

Test equating is a statistical procedure for adjusting for test form differences in difficulty in a standardized assessment. Equating results are supposed to hold for a specified target population (Kolen & Brennan, 2004; von Davier, Holland, & Thayer, 2004) and to be (relatively) independent of the subpopulations from the target population (see…

Small sample equating remains a largely unexplored area of research. This study attempts to fill in some of the research gaps via a large-scale, IRT-based simulation study that evaluates the performance of seven small-sample equating methods under various test characteristic and sampling conditions. The equating methods considered are typically…

Grouped jackknifing may be used to evaluate the stability of equating procedures with respect to sampling error and with respect to changes in anchor selection. Properties of grouped jackknifing are reviewed for simple-random and stratified sampling, and its use is described for comparisons of anchor sets. Application is made to examples of item…

This exploratory study was built on research spanning three decades. Petersen, Marco, and Stewart (1982) conducted a major empirical investigation of the efficacy of different equating methods. The studies reported in Dorans (1990) examined how different equating methods performed across samples selected in different ways. Recent population…

The discussion here covers five articles that are linked in the sense that they all treat population invariance. This discussion of population invariance is a somewhat broader treatment of the subject than simply a discussion of these five articles. In particular, occasional reference is made to publications other than those in this issue. The…

The sample invariant properties of five anchor test equating methods are addressed. Equating results across two sampling conditions--representative sampling and new-form matched sampling--are compared for Tucker and Levine equally reliable linear equating, item response theory true-score equating, and two equipercentile methods. (SLD)

Articles on equating test forms in this issue are reviewed and discussed. The results of these papers collectively indicate that matching on the anchor test does not result in more accurate equating. Implications for research are discussed. (SLD)

The articles in this issue that address the effect of matching samples on ability are reviewed. In spite of these examinations of equating methods and sampling plans, it is still hard to determine a definitive answer to the question of to match or not to match. Implications are discussed. (SLD)

This article discusses the five studies included in this issue. Each article addressed the same topic, population invariance of equating. They all used data from major standardized testing programs, and they all used essentially the same statistics to evaluate their results, namely, the root mean square difference and root expected mean square…