Common-Person Equating with the Rasch Model
Geofferey N. Masters
Abstract
Open-access reader
Geofferey N. Masters
Abstract
Open-access reader
Two procedures, one based on item difficulties, the other based on person abilities, were used to equate 14 forms of a reading comprehension test using the Rasch model. These forms had no items in common. For practical purposes, the two procedures produced equivalent results. An advantage of common-person equating for testing the unidimensionality assumption is pointed out, and the need for caution in interpreting tests of common-item invariance is stressed.
OpenAlex reports 30 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Two procedures, one based on item difficulties, the other based on person abilities, were used to equate 14 forms of a reading comprehension test using the Rasch model. These forms had no items in common. For practical purposes, the two procedures produced equivalent results. An advantage of common-person equating for testing the unidimensionality assumption is pointed out, and the need for caution in interpreting tests of common-item invariance is stressed.
Key concepts: Equating, Rasch model, Polytomous Rasch model, Item response theory, Psychology, Comprehension, Item analysis, Test (biology)