在“测试等价”中,什么是真正等价的?说教笔记

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Wim J. van der Linden
{"title":"在“测试等价”中,什么是真正等价的?说教笔记","authors":"Wim J. van der Linden","doi":"10.3102/10769986211072308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current literature on test equating generally defines it as the process necessary to obtain score comparability between different test forms. The definition is in contrast with Lord’s foundational paper which viewed equating as the process required to obtain comparability of measurement scale between forms. The distinction between the notions of scale and score is not trivial. The difference is explained by connecting these notions with standard statistical concepts as probability experiment, sample space, and random variable. The probability experiment underlying equating test forms with random scores immediately gives us the equating transformation as a function mapping the scale of one form into the other and thus supports the point of view taken by Lord. However, both Lord’s view and the current literature appear to rely on the idea of an experiment with random examinees which implies a different notion of test scores. It is shown how an explicit choice between the two experiments is not just important for our theoretical understanding of key notions in test equating but also has important practical consequences.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"47 1","pages":"353 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Is Actually Equated in “Test Equating”? A Didactic Note\",\"authors\":\"Wim J. van der Linden\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/10769986211072308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current literature on test equating generally defines it as the process necessary to obtain score comparability between different test forms. The definition is in contrast with Lord’s foundational paper which viewed equating as the process required to obtain comparability of measurement scale between forms. The distinction between the notions of scale and score is not trivial. The difference is explained by connecting these notions with standard statistical concepts as probability experiment, sample space, and random variable. The probability experiment underlying equating test forms with random scores immediately gives us the equating transformation as a function mapping the scale of one form into the other and thus supports the point of view taken by Lord. However, both Lord’s view and the current literature appear to rely on the idea of an experiment with random examinees which implies a different notion of test scores. It is shown how an explicit choice between the two experiments is not just important for our theoretical understanding of key notions in test equating but also has important practical consequences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"353 - 362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986211072308\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986211072308","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目前关于考试等值的文献通常将其定义为获得不同考试形式之间分数可比性所必需的过程。这一定义与Lord的基础论文形成了鲜明对比,Lord的基本论文将等式视为获得形式之间测量量表可比性所需的过程。量表和分数概念之间的区别并非微不足道。通过将这些概念与概率实验、样本空间和随机变量等标准统计概念联系起来,可以解释这种差异。将测试表格与随机分数等同起来的概率实验立即为我们提供了将一种表格的比例映射到另一种表格中的函数的等同变换,从而支持了Lord的观点。然而,洛德的观点和当前的文献似乎都依赖于对随机考生进行实验的想法,这意味着对考试成绩的看法不同。这表明,在这两个实验之间做出明确的选择不仅对我们对测试等式中关键概念的理论理解很重要,而且具有重要的实际后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Is Actually Equated in “Test Equating”? A Didactic Note
The current literature on test equating generally defines it as the process necessary to obtain score comparability between different test forms. The definition is in contrast with Lord’s foundational paper which viewed equating as the process required to obtain comparability of measurement scale between forms. The distinction between the notions of scale and score is not trivial. The difference is explained by connecting these notions with standard statistical concepts as probability experiment, sample space, and random variable. The probability experiment underlying equating test forms with random scores immediately gives us the equating transformation as a function mapping the scale of one form into the other and thus supports the point of view taken by Lord. However, both Lord’s view and the current literature appear to rely on the idea of an experiment with random examinees which implies a different notion of test scores. It is shown how an explicit choice between the two experiments is not just important for our theoretical understanding of key notions in test equating but also has important practical consequences.
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.
×
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