基于CTT的锚测验非等组设计中四种等值方法的比较研究

心理发展与教育 ›› 2006, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (1): 97-102.

基于CTT的锚测验非等组设计中四种等值方法的比较研究

焦丽亚, 辛涛

北京师范大学发展心理研究所, 北京, 100875

出版日期:2006-01-15 发布日期:2006-01-15
作者简介:辛涛(1968- ),男,北京师范大学心理学院教授;E-mail:xintao@bnu.edu.cn.
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(30440081);北京市重点实验室建设规划项目(jd100270541)资助

Comparison of Four Equating Methods in Common-Item NonEquivalent Group Design Based on The Classical Test Theory

JIAO Li-ya, XIN Tao

Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Online:2006-01-15 Published:2006-01-15

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用锚测验非等组设计的数据收集方案,对4种基于经典测量理论的等值方法进行了比较研究。研究数据取自TIMSS1999数据库,兼用等值标准误和交叉验证方法作为各等值方法比较的检验标准,利用CIPE程序对实验数据进行分析。研究结果表明,针对本研究所设置的等值情境,线性等值优于等百分位等值,其中Tucker线性方法比Levine观察分数线性方法更好一些,Braun-Holland线性方法不宜采用,频数估计等百分位方法等值误差较大,亦不足取。

关键词: 测验等值, 经典测量理论, 锚测验设计

Abstract: Four equating methods in common-item non-equivalent group design based on the classical test theory were compared.The research data was selected from the TIMSS1999 database.Both the equating Standard Error and a cross-validation analysis were used as the evaluation criteria.And the CIPE program was used to compute the data.We came to a conclusion that,in our research situation,the linear equating procedures were superior to the equipercentile method. Of the linear equating methods,the Tucker linear method was better than the Levine Observed Score equating method, and the Braun-Holland linear method was not appropriate.The Frequency Estimation equipercentile method was with large equating error,and should not be used.

Key words: test equating, classical test theory, common-item design

中图分类号:

B841.2

焦丽亚, 辛涛. 基于CTT的锚测验非等组设计中四种等值方法的比较研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2006, 22(1): 97-102.

JIAO Li-ya, XIN Tao. Comparison of Four Equating Methods in Common-Item NonEquivalent Group Design Based on The Classical Test Theory[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2006, 22(1): 97-102.

参考文献

[1] 谢小庆.对15种测验等值方法的比较研究.心理学报,2000.32.(2):217-223.
[2] Kolen M J.Comparsion of traditional and item response theory methods for equating tests.Journal of educational measurement,1981,18:1-11.
[3] Lord F M.Practical applications of item characteristic curve theory.Journal of educational measurement,1977,14:117-138.
[4] Marco G L.Item characteristic curve solutions to three intractable testing problems.Journal of educational measurement,1977,14:139-160.
[5] Woods E M,Wiley D E.An application of item characteristic curve equating to single form tests.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society,Chapel Hill,NC,1977.American educational research association,Toronto,Canada,1978
[6] Marco G L,Petersen N S,Stewart E E.A test of the adequacy curvilinear score equating models.Paper presented at the 1979 Computer Adaptive Testing Conference,Minneapolis,1979.
[7] Slinde J A,Linn R L.Vertically equated tests:Fact or phantom?Journal of educational measurement,1977,14:23-32.
[8] Petersen N S,Linda L C,Martha L S.Journal of educational statistics,1983,8:137-156.
[9] Kolen M J,Brennan R L.Test equating,scaling,and linking:methods and practices.New York:Springe Press,2004.
[10] 罗照盛.经典测量理论等值的误差研究.心理科学,2000.23.(4):494-501.
[11] Angoff W H.Scales,norms and equivalent scores.Educational measurement.1971.
[12] Kolen M J,Brennan R L.Test equating:methods and practices.New York:Springe Press,1995.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed