Investigation of Equating Error in Tests with Differential Item Functioning

Yurtçu, Meltem; Güzeller, Cem Oktay

doi:10.21449/ijate.316420

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Following this advice, this study used equating procedures using four popular methods: mean-mean, mean-sigma, Haebara, and Stocking-Lord. These four methods have been widely applied by other researchers (Retnawati et al, 2017;Yurtcu & Güzeller, 2017). However, not all findings from these studies are consistent with our study's findings.…”

Section: Figure 2 Test Characteristic Curve Equating For All Equating...supporting

confidence: 53%

Equating of standardized science subjects tests using various methods: which is the most profitable?

Asriadi

Retnawati

2023

thabiea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A good test set can be reflected in the quality of the items. It can measure the ability of the test takers reasonably even though they are distributed in several question packages. This study uses an exploratory, descriptive method to determine the equivalence of standardized test sets in science subjects for junior high schools in Indonesia. The data were obtained from the database of Junior High School National Examination results in the subject of Natural Sciences, which consisted of 5 question packages with 40 items/package. The equating technique uses the Item Response Theory 3 PL approach with the help of R Studio Software. The research results show that the national exam questions, which consist of 5 question packages, have a good level of item difficulty and all guesses. However, the discrimination index and several items obtained unfavorable results. In addition to the results of equating the graphical method using the closeness of the test characteristic curve, the Stocking & Lord methods produce the most equivalent scores. These findings can be a reference for test developers or researchers in the field of measurement to produce better and more accurate test kits.

show abstract

Section: Figure 2 Test Characteristic Curve Equating For All Equating...supporting

confidence: 53%

Equating of standardized science subjects tests using various methods: which is the most profitable?

Asriadi

Retnawati

2023

thabiea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RMSD value in equating using the BILOG program is smaller compared to equating based on the results of the analysis of the R program. In the equating test by calculating RMSD from the mean/mean method and the mean/sigma method, can be seen that in general the RMSD value of the mean/mean method is smaller than the RMSD value of the mean/sigma method [54], [56], [65]. RMSD is calculated by utilizing the estimation result ability parameter and parameters of the equation's results.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Equating Results Based On Root Mean Square Devia...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are studies that compared equating methods, but they used the IRTEQ Program [32], [51] or Rasch model [52], [53]. Other studies focused more on comparing equating methods that focused on the ability distribution estimation and sample size [54], comparing equating methods with the use of different test formats [55], investigating the effect of the number of biased items and their distribution in the equated form on equating error [56] and examining the impact of anchor items in the mean/sigma method on true score equating using IRT [57]. This study will describe the equating of the problem with the mean/sigma methods and the mean/ mean based on the estimation results of the BILOG and R program as well as find out the level of accuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which one is more accurate, BILOG or R program? (a comparison for score test equating)

Purnama,

Hadi,

Sukirno

et al. 2024

IJERE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation may be carried out using different tests that are not necessarily parallel. Students with lower abilities may get higher scores while those with higher abilities get lower scores. Measurement errors caused by this condition require test equating. Several computer programs, including Bilog and the R program, can be used for test equating. Each program has a different level of accuracy, and the accuracy of the equating results will affect the standard errors of equating. This study aimed to find out the most accurate equating test method and the accuracy of the estimated BILOG and R program. This research used two sets of tests with equivalent group designs. The determination of the most accurate equating method was based on the root mean square deviation (RMSD) value. Equating test packages, A to package B with BILOG program estimation on the mean and Sigma method resulted in RMSD value of 0.320. In the mean and mean method, RMSD value is 0.250. Meanwhile, equating package A to package B using R program on the mean and sigma resulted in RMSD value of 0.300, and the mean and mean method with the RMSD value is 0.272. The mean and mean yield RMSD values smaller than the mean and sigma methods. Therefore, the mean and mean method is more accurate and applicable. Moreover, the estimation results of the BILOG program are more accurate and can be used in test equating.

show abstract

“…Ayrıca Lee ve Brossman (2012) basit yapılı çok boyutlu eşitleme çalışmalarında gizil özellikler arasındaki korelasyon azaldıkça elde edilen hataların büyüklüğünün arttığını tespit etmişlerdir. Uğurlu (2020) ise basit yapılı çok boyutlu testlerle yürütmüş olduğu eşitleme çalışmasında gizil yetenekler arasındaki korelasyonun .5 olması koşulunun eşitleme ilişkisini en doğru yansıtan koşul olduğu bulgusuna ulaşmıştır. Tüm bu bulgular ışığında araştırmamızda basit yapılı iki boyutlu olarak türetilen veri setlerinde iki boyut arası korelasyon .5 olarak sabitlenmiştir.…”

Section: şEkil 1 İki Yetenekli Basit Yapılı çOk Boyutlu Modelunclassified

Investigation of the Effect of Violation of the Local Independence Assumption in Test Equating on Delta and Bootstrap Equating Errors According to Various Variables

DOĞUYURT

TAN

2023

Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bu araştırmada geleneksel test eşitleme yöntemlerinde hataların belirlenmesinde kullanılan delta ve bootstrap eşitleme hatası kestirme yöntemlerinin örneklem büyüklüğü, madde sayısı ve ikinci boyuta yüklenen madde yüzdesi değişkenleri bakımından incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada eşitleme yöntemleri farklı koşullarda simülasyon verileri ile kontrollü olarak karşılaştırıldığından araştırma similasyon uygulaması kapsamında bir betimsel araştırma niteliğindedir. Simülasyon çalışmalarında elde edilen simülasyon verisinin gerçek yanıtları temsil etmesi için simülasyon verileri PISA 2018 matematik sınavı birinci formundan elde edilen verilere ait dağılımlarından yararlanarak üretilmiştir. Genel olarak testte yer alan madde sayısı arttıkça ve örneklem sayısı küçüldükçe elde edilen hata miktarlarında artış olduğu en az hata içeren koşulun 5000 örneklem büyüklüğü ve testte yer alan madde sayısının 20 olması durumunda elde edildiği, en iyi performansa sahip eşitleme yönteminin doğrusal eşitleme yöntemi olduğu ve eşitleme hatalarını belirlemede kullanılan yöntem olarak da delta yöntemi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca testin tek boyutlu yapısının bozulup çok boyutlu olması durumunda ikinci boyuta yüklenen madde oranı bakımından elde edilen eşitleme hatalarında sistematik bir bulguya rastlanılmadığı, araştırmada ele alınan test eşitleme yöntemleri, eşitleme hatalarını belirlemede kullanılan yöntem, örneklem büyüklüğü ve testte yer alan madde sayısı koşullarına göre değişkenlik gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

show abstract

Investigation of Equating Error in Tests with Differential Item Functioning

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Equating of standardized science subjects tests using various methods: which is the most profitable?

Equating of standardized science subjects tests using various methods: which is the most profitable?

Which one is more accurate, BILOG or R program? (a comparison for score test equating)

Investigation of the Effect of Violation of the Local Independence Assumption in Test Equating on Delta and Bootstrap Equating Errors According to Various Variables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About