The Effect of Proportion and Position of Anchor Items Toward Test Equating
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51454/jet.v6i2.583Keywords:
anchor item proportion, anchor item position, test equatingAbstract
This study examines how the proportion and position of anchor items influence test equating results, a key component in ensuring fairness and accuracy in standardized assessments. In this experimental design, the independent variables are the proportion and position of anchor items, and the dependent variable is the absolute difference in ability parameters before and after the equating process. To assess this, we analyzed test response data from 1,000 respondents, each completing 40 items across 24 data sets, generated through Monte Carlo simulations for reliability. The analysis was conducted using bi-factor cell mean analysis, a method that explores the interaction between various factors influencing equating outcomes. Results show that (1) a higher proportion of anchor items enhances the accuracy of test equating, (2) the position of anchor items significantly affects the equating outcomes, with positions at the beginning showing the highest accuracy, (3) the interaction of both proportion and position plays a crucial role in improving equating results, and (4) the position of anchor items has a more significant impact on equating accuracy than the proportion of anchor items.
Downloads
References
Agung, I. G. N. (2006). Statistika penerapan model rerata-sel multivariat dan model ekonometri dengan SPSS. Yayasan Sad Satria Bhakti.
Brennan, R. L. (2006). Educational Measurement. ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education. ERIC.
Budescu, D. (1985). Efficiency of linear equating as a function of the length of the anchor test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(1), 13–20.
Dorans, N. J. (1990). Equating Methods and Sampling Designs. Applied Measurement in Education, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0301_2
Dorans, N. J., Moses, T. P., & Eignor, D. R. (2010). Principles and practices of test score equating. ETS Research Report Series, 2010(2), i–41.
Harris, D. J. (2007). Practical issues in vertical scaling. In Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 233–251). Springer.
Harris, D. J., & Crouse, J. D. (1993). A study of criteria used in equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 6(3), 195–240.
Holland, P. W., Dorans, N. J., & Petersen, N. S. (2006). 6 Equating Test Scores. In Handbook of statistics (p. 169). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7161(06)26006-1
Kim, S., & Lee, W.-C. (2004). IRT scale linking methods for mixed-format tests (Vol. 5). ACT, Incorporated.
Kim, S.-H., & Cohen, A. S. (1998). A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(2), 131–143.
Kim, Y. H. (2014). A comparison of smoothing methods for the anchor item nonequivalent groups design. University of Iowa.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. Springer.
Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational Measurement. American Council on Education Series on Higher Education. ERIC.
Liu, J., Sinharay, S., Holland, P. W., Curley, E., & Feigenbaum, M. (2011). Test score equating using a mini-version anchor and a midi anchor: A case study using SAT® data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48(4), 361–379.
Marengo, D., Miceli, R., Rosato, R., & Settanni, M. (2018). Placing multiple tests on a common scale using a post-test anchor design: Effects of item position and order on the stability of parameter estimates. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2018.00050
Mislevy, R. J. (1992). Linking educational assessments: Concepts, issues, methods, and prospects.
Patz, R. J., & Yao, L. (2007). Methods and models for vertical scaling. In Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 253–272). Springer.
Pommerich, M., & Dorans, N. J. (2004). Linking scores via concordance: Introduction to the special issue. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 216–218. Sage Publications.
Ryan, J., & Brockmann, F. (2009). A practitioner’s introduction to equating with primers on classical test theory and item response theory. Council of Chief State School Officers.
Sinharay, S., & Holland, P. W. (2007). Is it necessary to make anchor tests mini‐versions of the tests being equated or can some restrictions be relaxed? Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(3), 249–275.
Uysal, İ., & Kilmen, S. (2016). Comparison of item response theory test equating methods for mixed format tests. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2016.02.001
Wingersky, M. S., Cook, L. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1987). Specifying the characteristics of linking items used for item response theory item calibration. ETS Research Report Series, 1987(1), i–100.
Yen, W. M. (2007). Vertical scaling and no child left behind. In Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 273–283). Springer.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Syahrul Syahrul, Mansyur Mansyur, Muh. Rusdi, Suryadi Ishak
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
