Three equating methods were compared in terms of magnitude of scale drift: equipercentile equating, linear equating, and item response theory (IRT) equating. A sample of approximately 2670 cases was selected for each pairing of a form of the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) and an anchor test. Of the two conventional equating methods,…

Two attempts to adjust state mean Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores for differential participation rates are examined. Both attempts are rejected, and five rules for performing adjustments are outlined to foster follow-up checks on untested assumptions. National Assessment of Educational Progress state data are determined to be more accurate.…

Previous research has studied the effects of different methods of item option weighting on the reliability and concurrent and predictive validity of achievement tests. Increases in reliability are generally found, but with mixed results for validity. Several methods of producing option weights, (i.e., Guttman internal and external weights and…

Calculating the reliability of a testlet-based test is demonstrated using data from 1,812 males and 2,216 females taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test verbal section and 3,866 examinees taking another reading test. Traditional reliabilities calculated on reading comprehension tests constructed of four testlets provided substantial overestimates.…

This study tests several explanations for discrepant results in an earlier study (Cook et al., 1985) which presented a partial pre-calibration method for equating new editions of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to the same scale as older editions. In contrast to full pre-calibration, which seeks to equate all items from two or more editions,…