Comparing performance of different equating methods in presence and absence of DIF items in anchor test

Periodical
International Journal of Progressive Education
Volume
16
Year
2020
Issue number
3
Page range
111-122
Relates to study/studies
TIMSS 2015

Comparing performance of different equating methods in presence and absence of DIF items in anchor test

Abstract

This study aims to compare the performance of different small sample equating methods in the presence and absence of differential item functioning (DIF) in common items. In this research, Tucker linear equating, Levine linear equating, unsmoothed and presmoothed (C=4) chained equipercentile equating, and simplified circle arc equating methods were considered. The data used in this study is 8th-grade mathematics test item responses which obtained from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015 Turkey sample. Item responses from Booklet-1 (N=199) and Booklet-14 (N=224) are chosen for this study. Data analyses were completed in four steps. In the first step, assumptions for DIF detection and test equating methods were checked. In the second step, DIF analyses were conducted with Mantel Haenszel and logistic regression methods. In the third step, Booklet 1 was chosen as base form and Booklet 14 chosen as a new form, then test equating was conducted under common item nonequivalent groups design. Test equating was done in two phases: the presence and absence of DIF items in the common items. Equating results were evaluated based on standard error of equating (se), bias and RMSE indexes. DIF analyses showed that there were two sizeable DIF items in anchor test. Equating results showed that performances of equating methods are similar in presence and absence of DIF items from anchor test and there is no notable change in se, bias and RMSE values. While the circle arc equating method outperformed other equating methods based on se, 4-moment presmoothed chained equipercentile equating method outperformed other methods based on bias and RMSE evaluation criteria.