東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A comparison between the vertical sc...

Yu, Jing.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A comparison between the vertical scaling of tests sensitive to multiple dimensions using common-item and common-group designs.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A comparison between the vertical scaling of tests sensitive to multiple dimensions using common-item and common-group designs./
作者:	Yu, Jing.
面頁冊數:	115 p.
附註:	Adviser: Mark D. Reckase.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International68-05A.
標題:	Education, Bilingual and Multicultural. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3264257
ISBN:	9780549027850

A comparison between the vertical scaling of tests sensitive to multiple dimensions using common-item and common-group designs.
Yu, Jing.

A comparison between the vertical scaling of tests sensitive to multiple dimensions using common-item and common-group designs. - 115 p.

Adviser: Mark D. Reckase.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2007.

Three methods of item response theory (IRT) linking---common-item, common-group and a combination of common-item and common-group (referred to as common-common) linking designs were compared using real testing data from an English as second language (ESL) exam program. The methods were considered as "vertical scaling" instead of "equating" because, first, the test was designed to examine three different traits of English ability; multidimensional IRT and factor analysis on testing data confirms that the test was multidimensional. Second, the two test forms are not at the same difficulty level, the averaged difficulty parameters were different by about 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 standard units, thus the linking was considered vertical. The effects of test length and averaged difficulty level differences were also analyzed. For practical reasons, the anchor test used in the common-item linking design could not represent all the dimensions of the test forms.

ISBN: 9780549027850Subjects--Topical Terms:

626653
Education, Bilingual and Multicultural.

A comparison between the vertical scaling of tests sensitive to multiple dimensions using common-item and common-group designs.
LDR:02742nam 2200289 a 45 001 954507
005 20110622
008 110622s2007 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780549027850
035 $a (UMI)AAI3264257
035 $a AAI3264257
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Yu, Jing. $3 1272311
245 1 2 $a A comparison between the vertical scaling of tests sensitive to multiple dimensions using common-item and common-group designs.
300 $a 115 p.
500 $a Adviser: Mark D. Reckase.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-05, Section: A, page: 1902.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2007.
520 $a Three methods of item response theory (IRT) linking---common-item, common-group and a combination of common-item and common-group (referred to as common-common) linking designs were compared using real testing data from an English as second language (ESL) exam program. The methods were considered as "vertical scaling" instead of "equating" because, first, the test was designed to examine three different traits of English ability; multidimensional IRT and factor analysis on testing data confirms that the test was multidimensional. Second, the two test forms are not at the same difficulty level, the averaged difficulty parameters were different by about 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 standard units, thus the linking was considered vertical. The effects of test length and averaged difficulty level differences were also analyzed. For practical reasons, the anchor test used in the common-item linking design could not represent all the dimensions of the test forms.
520 $a The original data contained dichotomous responses from about 30,000 individuals on 130 items. For the evaluation of each linking design, a sub-sample of cases and responses were selected. The linking designs were evaluated by calculating the standard error of equating and by comparing the examinees' scores and item parameters before vs. after equating. Results of the analyses indicate that common-group and common-common linking designs can serve as adequate alternatives to the well-recognized common-item design. Longer test forms work better for item parameter estimation and have smaller standard errors of equating. When the ability of the group does not match the difficulty level of the assigned form, the common-item design has a slightly smaller standard error of equating than the common-group and common-common designs.
590 $a School code: 0128.
650 4 $a Education, Bilingual and Multicultural. $3 626653
650 4 $a Education, Tests and Measurements. $3 1017589
690 $a 0282
690 $a 0288
710 2 $a Michigan State University. $3 676168
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 68-05A.
790 $a 0128
790 1 0 $a Reckase, Mark D., $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2007
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3264257