Comparisons were made of three Angoff Design V linear equating methods (two forms equated to a common test, two forms predicted by a common test, or two forms used to predict a common test) and Tucker's and R. Levine's linear methods, under common item linear equating with non-equivalent populations. Forms of a professional certification test administered to over 78,000 applicants were equated under the five different methods, using single-link equating of selected pairs of forms and cyclical equating of selected forms to themselves via equating chains. In addition, the five methods were tried on a set of hypothetical situations involving parallel or congeneric forms and anchor tests. In the single-link equatings, raw score equivalents by the Angoff methods tended to fall between those obtained with the Tucker and Levine methods. The chain equatings produced similar estimated bias and estimated root-mean-squared error of score equivalents for the five different methods. Results of equating in the hypothetical situations appeared consistent with the manner in which they were constructed and with the assumptions underlying the five different equating methods. (GDC)