- Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 508–600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. [Google Scholar]
- Antal, J.,Proctor, T. P. &Melican, G.C., (2014). The effect of anchor test construction on scaledrift. Applied Measurement in Education, 27: 159–172, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, H. I.,&Holland, P. W. (1982). Observed-score test equating: A mathematical analysis Of some ETS equating procedures. In P. W. Holland & D. B. Rubin (Eds.), Test equating (pp. 9–49). New York, NY: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, L. L.,&Eignor, D. R. (1991). An NCME instructional module on IRT equating methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 37-45. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, Z. (2006). Two new alternative smoothing methods in equating: The cubic B-spline presmoothing methodand the direct presmoothing method. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. [Google Scholar]
- Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
- Fitzpatrick, J.,& Skorupski, W. P. (2016). Equating with midi tests using IRT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(2), 172-189. [Google Scholar]
- Hagge, S. L. (2010). The impact of equating method and format representation of anchor items on the adequacy of mixed-format test equating using nonequivalent groups (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa. Iowa city. [Google Scholar]
- Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston: Academic Puslishers Group. [Google Scholar]
- Hambleton, R. K.,Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Hanson, B. A. &Beguin, A. A. (2002). Obtaining a anchor scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the anchor-item equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(1), 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, D. J.,& Crouse, J. D. (1993). A study of criteria used in equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 195–240. [Google Scholar]
- Niyazi Karasar. (2007). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.-H.,&Cohen, A. S. (2002). A comparison of linking and concurrent calibration under the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 25-41. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, H.Y., (2014). A comparison of smoothing methods for the anchor item nonequivalent groups design. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa. Iowa city. [Google Scholar]
- Kolen, M. J. (1988). An NCME instructional module on traditional equating methodology. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 29-36. [Google Scholar]
- Kolen, M. J.,&Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and Practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Kolen, M. J. (2007). Data collection designs and linking procedures. Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 31-55). New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.,Sinharay, S., Holland, P. W., Curley, E., & Feigenbaum, M. (2011a). Test score equating using a mini-version anchor and a midi anchor: A case studyusing SAT data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 48, 361–379. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.,Sinharay, S., Holland, P., Feigenbaum, M., & Curley, E. (2011b). Observed score equating using a mini-version anchor and an anchor with less spread of difficulty: A comparison study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 346–361. [Google Scholar]
- Livingston, S. A. (2004). Equating test scores (without IRT). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Google Scholar]
- Nozawa, Y. (2008). Comparison of parametric and nonparametric IRT equating methods under the anchor-item nonequivalent groups design. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. Iowa city. [Google Scholar]
- Norman-Dvorak, R. L. (2009). A comparison of kernel equating to the test characteristic curve method. (Unpublished doctorate thesis), University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. [Google Scholar]
- Petersen, N.S.,Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming and equating. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 221-262). New York: American Council on Education. [Google Scholar]
- Rizopoulos, D. (2015). Package 'ltm'. [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ltm/ltm.pdf, Erişim tarihi: Ekim 2016.] [Google Scholar]
- Sinharay, S.,Haberman, S., Holland, P., &Lewis, C. (2012). A note on the choice of an anchor test in equating. ETS Research Report RR-12-14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Google Scholar]
- Sinharay, S.,&Holland, P. (2006). The correlation between the scores of a test and an anchor test. ETS Research Report RR-06-04. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Google Scholar]
- Sinharay, S.,&Holland, P. W. (2007). Is it necessary to make anchor tests mini-versions of [Google Scholar]
- the tests being equated or can some restrictions be relaxed? Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 249–275. [Google Scholar]
- Speron, E. (2009). A comparison of metric linking procedures in Item Response Theory. (Unpublished doctorate thesis), University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, Y.,&Kolen, M. (2005). Assessing equating results on different equating criteria. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29 (6), 418-432. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, W. (1998). Test equating: What, why, how?.Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 69(1), 11-23. [Google Scholar]
|
