1 / 21

A Balancing Act: Common Items Nonequivalent Groups (CING) Equating Item Selection

A Balancing Act: Common Items Nonequivalent Groups (CING) Equating Item Selection. Tia Sukin Jennifer Dunn Wonsuk Kim Robert Keller July 24, 2009. Background. Equating using a CING design requires the creation of an anchor set

julio
Download Presentation

A Balancing Act: Common Items Nonequivalent Groups (CING) Equating Item Selection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A Balancing Act:Common Items Nonequivalent Groups (CING) Equating Item Selection Tia Sukin Jennifer Dunn Wonsuk Kim Robert Keller July 24, 2009

  2. Background • Equating using a CING design requires the creation of an anchor set • Angoff (1968) developed guidelines for developing the anchor set • Length: 20% of operational test (OT) or 20 items • Content: Proportionate to OT by strand • Statistical Properties: Same mean / S.D. • Contextual Effects: Same locations, formats, key, etc.

  3. Background • Majority of the research provides support for these guidelines (e.g., Vale et al., 1981; Klein & Jarjoura, 1985; Kingston & Dorans, 1984) • Research has included robustness studies (e.g., Wingersky & Lord, 1984; Beguin, 2002; Sinharay & Holland, 2007)

  4. Background • Most research has used placement (e.g., AP), admissions (e.g., SAT), and military (e.g., ASVAB) exams for empirical and informed simulation studies • Research using statewide accountability exams is limited (e.g., Haertel, 2004; Michaelides & Haertel, 2004)

  5. Background • General Science tests are administered in all states for all grade levels except: • 19 states offer EOC Science exams in H.S. • 10 offer more than one EOC Science exam • 5 offer more than two

  6. Research Questions • Do the long-established guidelines for maintaining content representation (i.e., proportion by number) hold in creating an anchor set across all major subject areas (i.e., Mathematics, Reading, Science)? • Are there significant changes between expected raw scores and proficiency classification when different methods for maintaining content representation are used?

  7. Design 5 Methods of Anchor Set Construction • Operational • Proportion by Number of Items/Strand • G Theory • ICCs • Construct Underrepresentation 3 Subjects (2 States, 3 Grades) • Math • Reading • Science

  8. Variance Calculation – G Theory Multivariate Design • p x i with content strand as a fixed facet Multivariate Benefit • Covariance components are calculated for every pair of strands Item Variance Component

  9. Variance Calculation – ICC • Use the median P(θ) as the average in calculating within strand variability P(θ) θ

  10. Equating Item Selection Example:

  11. Equating Item Selection • Percentage of strands that differ by more than one item between selection methods (excluding the construct underrepresentation method): • Math: 13% • Reading: 52% • Science: 20%

  12. Example Results – Scoring Category Distributions

  13. Discussion • Equating is highly robust to the selection process used for creating anchor sets EXCEPT • Choosing equating items from 1-2 strands is discouraged • More caution may be needed with Science • Item selection mattered for 22% of the conditions • 2/18 for Math: Both were the under rep. condition • 3/18 for Reading: All were the under rep. condition • 7/18 for Science: 2 under rep. / 5 ICC and G • Content balance is important and can be conceptualized in different ways without impacting the equating

  14. Future Study • A simulation study is needed so that raw score and proficiency categorizations using the different item selection methods can be compared to truth • Meta-analysis detailing published & unpublished studies that provide evidence for or against the robustness of CING equating designs

  15. Thank you 

More Related