普通群体连接桥研究中的误差方差

Q3 Social Sciences
Paul A. Jewsbury
{"title":"普通群体连接桥研究中的误差方差","authors":"Paul A. Jewsbury","doi":"10.1002/ets2.12279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When an assessment undergoes changes to the administration or instrument, bridge studies are typically used to try to ensure comparability of scores before and after the change. Among the most common and powerful is the common population linking design, with the use of a linear transformation to link scores to the metric of the original assessment. In the common population linking design, randomly equivalent samples receive the new and previous administration or instrument. However, conventional procedures to estimate error variances are not appropriate for scores linked in a bridge study, because the procedures neglect variance due to linking. A convenient approach is to estimate a variance component associated with the linking to add to the conventionally estimated error variance. Equations for the variance components in this approach are derived, and the approximations inherently made in this approach are shown and discussed. Exact error variances of linked scores, accounting for both conventional sources of variance (e.g., sampling) and linking variance together, are derived and discussed. The consequences of how linking changes how certain errors are related is considered mathematically. Specifically, the impacts of linking on the error variance for the comparison of two linked estimates (e.g., comparing the mean score of boys to the mean score of girls, after linking), for the comparison of scores across the two samples (e.g., comparing the mean score of boys in the new administration or instrument to the mean score of boys in the old administration or instrument), and for aggregating scores across the two samples (e.g., the mean score of boys across both administrations or instruments) are derived and discussed. Finally, general methods to account for error variance in bridge studies by simultaneously accounting for both conventional and linking sources of error are recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":11972,"journal":{"name":"ETS Research Report Series","volume":"2019 1","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ets2.12279","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Error Variance in Common Population Linking Bridge Studies\",\"authors\":\"Paul A. Jewsbury\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ets2.12279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>When an assessment undergoes changes to the administration or instrument, bridge studies are typically used to try to ensure comparability of scores before and after the change. Among the most common and powerful is the common population linking design, with the use of a linear transformation to link scores to the metric of the original assessment. In the common population linking design, randomly equivalent samples receive the new and previous administration or instrument. However, conventional procedures to estimate error variances are not appropriate for scores linked in a bridge study, because the procedures neglect variance due to linking. A convenient approach is to estimate a variance component associated with the linking to add to the conventionally estimated error variance. Equations for the variance components in this approach are derived, and the approximations inherently made in this approach are shown and discussed. Exact error variances of linked scores, accounting for both conventional sources of variance (e.g., sampling) and linking variance together, are derived and discussed. The consequences of how linking changes how certain errors are related is considered mathematically. Specifically, the impacts of linking on the error variance for the comparison of two linked estimates (e.g., comparing the mean score of boys to the mean score of girls, after linking), for the comparison of scores across the two samples (e.g., comparing the mean score of boys in the new administration or instrument to the mean score of boys in the old administration or instrument), and for aggregating scores across the two samples (e.g., the mean score of boys across both administrations or instruments) are derived and discussed. Finally, general methods to account for error variance in bridge studies by simultaneously accounting for both conventional and linking sources of error are recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ETS Research Report Series\",\"volume\":\"2019 1\",\"pages\":\"1-31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ets2.12279\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ETS Research Report Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ets2.12279\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ETS Research Report Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ets2.12279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

当一项评估的管理或工具发生变化时,桥梁研究通常用于确保变化前后分数的可比性。其中最常见和最强大的是常见的人口关联设计,使用线性转换将分数与原始评估的度量联系起来。在普通人群关联设计中,随机相等的样本接受新的和以前的管理或工具。然而,传统的估计误差方差的方法不适用于桥梁研究中关联的分数,因为这些方法忽略了关联引起的方差。一种方便的方法是估计与链接相关的方差分量,并将其添加到传统估计的误差方差中。推导了该方法中方差分量的方程,并展示和讨论了该方法固有的近似。考虑到传统的方差来源(如抽样)和关联方差,推导并讨论了关联分数的精确误差方差。连接如何改变某些错误如何关联的后果是数学上考虑的。具体来说,链接对两个关联估计比较的误差方差的影响(例如,链接后将男孩的平均分数与女孩的平均分数进行比较),两个样本之间的分数比较(例如,将新行政部门或工具中的男孩的平均分数与旧行政部门或工具中的男孩的平均分数进行比较),以及两个样本之间的总分数(例如,推导并讨论了两届政府或机构中男孩的平均得分。最后,通过同时考虑传统和连接的误差来源,推荐了在桥梁研究中考虑误差方差的一般方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Error Variance in Common Population Linking Bridge Studies

When an assessment undergoes changes to the administration or instrument, bridge studies are typically used to try to ensure comparability of scores before and after the change. Among the most common and powerful is the common population linking design, with the use of a linear transformation to link scores to the metric of the original assessment. In the common population linking design, randomly equivalent samples receive the new and previous administration or instrument. However, conventional procedures to estimate error variances are not appropriate for scores linked in a bridge study, because the procedures neglect variance due to linking. A convenient approach is to estimate a variance component associated with the linking to add to the conventionally estimated error variance. Equations for the variance components in this approach are derived, and the approximations inherently made in this approach are shown and discussed. Exact error variances of linked scores, accounting for both conventional sources of variance (e.g., sampling) and linking variance together, are derived and discussed. The consequences of how linking changes how certain errors are related is considered mathematically. Specifically, the impacts of linking on the error variance for the comparison of two linked estimates (e.g., comparing the mean score of boys to the mean score of girls, after linking), for the comparison of scores across the two samples (e.g., comparing the mean score of boys in the new administration or instrument to the mean score of boys in the old administration or instrument), and for aggregating scores across the two samples (e.g., the mean score of boys across both administrations or instruments) are derived and discussed. Finally, general methods to account for error variance in bridge studies by simultaneously accounting for both conventional and linking sources of error are recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ETS Research Report Series
ETS Research Report Series Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信