Yıl 2018, Cilt 5, Sayı 3, Sayfalar 417 - 427 2018-06-06

A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods

Çiğdem Akın Arıkan [1] , Selahattin Gelbal [2]

23 26

In this study, the equated score results of the kernel equating (KE) method compared with the results of traditional equating methods—equipercentile and linear equating and 9th grade 2009 ÖBBS Form B of Social Sciences and 2009 ÖBBS Form D of Social Sciences was used under an equivalent groups (EG) design. Study sample consists of 16.249 students taking booklets B and another 16.327 students taking D in that test. The analysis of the test forms was carried out in four steps. First, descriptive statistics were calculated for the data and then it was checked whether the data obtained from the two booklets satisfy the equating conditions. In the second step, the booklets were equated according to methods. Lastly, the errors for each equating methods were calculated. Kernel equating results were nearly same to the results from the corresponding traditional equating methods. In Kernel equating, when parameter h was selected as optimal, equated scores provided almost identical results as traditional equipercentile equating. When it was selected large, this time the equated scores provided results almost identical to traditional linear equating. It is concluded that Kernel equating methods are relatively more the most appropriate equating method method than traditional equating methods.

Kernel equating, , Traditional equating Methods, The equivalent groups design
  • Akhun, İ. (1984). “İki korelasyon katsayısı arasındaki manidarlığın test edilmesi”. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 17, 1-7.
  • Albano, A. D. (2016). “equate: An R packageforobserved-score linking and equating”. Journal of Statistical Software, 74(8), 1-36.
  • Andersson, B.,Branberg, K., Wiberg, M. (2013). “Performing the Kernel Method of Test Equating with the Package kequate”. Journal of Statistical Software, 55(6), 1–25.
  • Baykul, Y. (1996). İstatistik: Metodlar ve uygulamalar (3. Baskı). Ankara: Anı Puplishing
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007).Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (8.Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Choi, S. I. (2009). “A comparison of kernel equating and traditional equipercentile equating methods and the parametric bootstrap methods for estimating Standard errors in equipercentile equating”.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
  • Dorans, N. J.,&Holland, P. W. (2000). “Population invariance and the equatability of tests: Basic theory and the linearcase”. ETS Research Report Series, (2).
  • Eğitim, Araştırma ve Geliştirmesi Daire Başkanlığı (EARGED).(2010). Ortaöğretim ÖBBS raporu 2009. Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  • Grant, M. C.,Zhang, L., &Damiano, M. (2009). “An Evaluation of Kernel Equating: Parallel Equating with Classical Methods in the SAT SubjectTests [TM] Program”. ETS Research Report Series, Educational Testing Service.
  • Hambleton, R. K. &Swaminathan, H. (1985).“Item response theory: principles and applications”. Boston: Academic Puslishers Group.
  • Holland, P. W. (2007). A frame work and history for score linking. In Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 5-30).Springer, New York, NY.
  • Kelecioğlu, H.,& Öztürk Gübeş, N. (2013). “Comparing linear equating and equipercentile equating methods using random groups design”. International. Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 227-241.
  • Kolen, M. J. (1988). “An NCME instructional module on traditional equating methodology”.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7, 29-36.
  • Kolen, M. J.,&Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd. ed.). New York: Springer.
  • Lee, Y. H.,&vonDavier, A. A. (2011). Equating through alternative kernels.In Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking (pp. 159-173).Springer New York.
  • Livingston, S. A. (2014). “Equating test scores (without IRT)”. Educational testing service.
  • Mao, X. (2006).“An investigation of the accuracy of the estimates of Standard errors for the kernel equating functions”.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, TheUniversity of Iowa.
  • Mao, X.,Davier, A. A., &Rupp, S. (2006). “Comparisons of the Kernel Equating Method with the Traditiona Equating Methods on Praxis™ Data”.ETS Research Report Series, 2006(2).
  • Ricker, K. L.,&Davier, A. A. (2007). “Theimpact of anchor test length on equating results in a nonequivalent groupsdesign”. ETS Research Report Series, 2007(2).
  • vonDavier, A. A.,Holland, P. W., Livingston, S. A., Casabianca, J., Grant, M. C., & Martin, K. (2006). “An Evaluation of the Kernel Equating Method: A Special Study with Pseudo tests Constructed From Real Test Data”. ETS Research Report Series,2006(1).
  • von Davier, A., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (2004). The Kernel method of equating. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Zhu, W. (1998).“Test equating: What, why, how?”.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(1), 11-23
Birincil Dil en
Konular Eğitim Bilimleri
Yayımlanma Tarihi September
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0001-5255-8792
Yazar: Çiğdem Akın Arıkan (Sorumlu Yazar)
E-posta: akincgdm@gmail.com
Kurum: Ordu Üniversitesi Eğitim fakültesi
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: orcid.org/0000-0001-5181-7262
Yazar: Selahattin Gelbal
E-posta: sgelbal@gmail.com
Kurum: Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Ülke: Turkey


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ijate409826, journal = {International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education}, issn = {}, address = {İzzet KARA}, year = {2018}, volume = {5}, pages = {417 - 427}, doi = {10.21449/ijate.409826}, title = {A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods}, key = {cite}, author = {Akın Arıkan, Çiğdem and Gelbal, Selahattin} }
APA Akın Arıkan, Ç , Gelbal, S . (2018). A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5 (3), 417-427. DOI: 10.21449/ijate.409826
MLA Akın Arıkan, Ç , Gelbal, S . "A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods". International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 5 (2018): 417-427 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/ijate/issue/37036/409826>
Chicago Akın Arıkan, Ç , Gelbal, S . "A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods". International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 5 (2018): 417-427
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods AU - Çiğdem Akın Arıkan , Selahattin Gelbal Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.21449/ijate.409826 DO - 10.21449/ijate.409826 T2 - International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 417 EP - 427 VL - 5 IS - 3 SN - -2148-7456 M3 - doi: 10.21449/ijate.409826 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.21449/ijate.409826 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods %A Çiğdem Akın Arıkan , Selahattin Gelbal %T A Comparison of Traditional and Kernel Equating Methods %D 2018 %J International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education %P -2148-7456 %V 5 %N 3 %R doi: 10.21449/ijate.409826 %U 10.21449/ijate.409826