Analysis compares test equating and scale transformation under item response theory models, highlighting the impact of sample size on accuracy.
Purpose: This study examines the test equating performance under various item response theory models and sample size conditions in testlet based tests. Design/Methodology/Approach: Utilizing data from the eTIMSS 2019 science test, the study compares scale transformation methods and test equating results under Unidimensional Item Response Theory (UIRT), Testlet Response Theory (TRT) and bifactor models with varying sample sizes. Scale transformation methods, including the mean-sigma and Stocking-Lord methods, as well as observed and true score equating methods, were employed within the framework of a common-item nonequivalent groups design. To evaluate the equating performance, RMSE and BIAS values were calculated. Findings: The findings indicate that in a science test with low testlet effects, scale transformation results based on the UIRT model and test equating results based on the bifactor model demonstrated lower error rates. Moreover, as sample size increased, the error in parameter estimations generally decreased, with the TRT model specifically requiring a sample size of at least 500 for robust estimations. Highlights: The bifactor model, taking testlet effects into account, yielded more precise and consistent results, facilitating fair and reliable score equating. This study, utilizing real data, concretely illustrates the practical implications of testlet effects in tests containing testlets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DİLEK et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: