User Guide
Why can I only view 3 results?
You can also view all results when you are connected from the network of member institutions only. For non-member institutions, we are opening a 1-month free trial version if institution officials apply.
So many results that aren't mine?
References in many bibliographies are sometimes referred to as "Surname, I", so the citations of academics whose Surname and initials are the same may occasionally interfere. This problem is often the case with citation indexes all over the world.
How can I see only citations to my article?
After searching the name of your article, you can see the references to the article you selected as soon as you click on the details section.
 Views 85
 Downloands 9
Comparing Performance Of Different Equating Methods In Presence and Absence Of Dif Items In Anchor Test
2020
Journal:  
International Journal Of Progressive Education
Author:  
Abstract:

This study aims to compare the performance of different small sample equating methods in the presence and absence of differential item functioning (DIF) in common items. In this research, Tucker linear equating, Levine linear equating, unsmoothed and presmoothed (C=4) chained equipercentile equating, and simplified circle arc equating methods were considered. The data used in this study is 8th-grade mathematics test item responses which obtained from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015 Turkey sample. Item responses from Booklet-1 (N=199) and Booklet-14 (N=224) are chosen for this study. Data analyses were completed in four steps. In the first step, assumptions for DIF detection and test equating methods were checked. In the second step, DIF analyses were conducted with Mantel Haenszel and logistic regression methods. In the third step, Booklet 1 was chosen as base form and Booklet 14 chosen as a new form, then test equating was conducted under common item nonequivalent groups design. Test equating was done in two phases: the presence and absence of DIF items in the common items. Equating results were evaluated based on standard error of equating (se), bias and RMSE indexes. DIF analyses showed that there were two sizeable DIF items in anchor test. Equating results showed that performances of equating methods are similar in presence and absence of DIF items from anchor test and there is no notable change in se, bias and RMSE values. While the circle arc equating method outperformed other equating methods based on se, 4-moment presmoothed chained equipercentile equating method outperformed other methods based on bias and RMSE evaluation criteria.

Keywords:

Citation Owners
Information: There is no ciation to this publication.
Similar Articles










International Journal Of Progressive Education

Field :   Eğitim Bilimleri

Journal Type :   Ulusal

Metrics
Article : 519
Cite : 595
© 2015-2024 Sobiad Citation Index