ADVANCING FAIRNESS IN 21ST CENTURY TESTING: A SYNTHESIS OF TEST EQUATING STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES
Keywords:
Test,, Test Equating, Test Theory and Item Response TheoryAbstract
Ensuring fairness and validity in high-stakes educational and psychological assessments requires accurate comparison of scores across multiple test forms. This paper provides a comprehensive examination of test equating, highlighting its theoretical foundations, methodologies, and practical applications. Drawing on Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT), the study reviews linear, equipercentile, mean, chain, Haebara, and Stocking-Lord equating methods, as well as horizontal and vertical equating designs. Emphasis is placed on the critical role of equating in maintaining score comparability, addressing item parameter drift, supporting high-stakes decisions, and enhancing test security, including mitigating item exposure and cheating. Recent advances in propensity score-based equating and automated item generation are also discussed as innovative solutions for contemporary testing challenges. The synthesis identifies gaps in empirical research regarding the application of equating methods in digital and open-testing environments. The paper underscores equating as not only a statistical procedure but also a tool for fairness, ensuring that examinee performance is measured accurately and consistently across test forms and administrations.
References
Agah, J. J. (2013). Relative Efficiency of Test Scores Equating Methods in the Comparison of Students Continuous Assessment Measures (Doctoral dissertation, UNN).
AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing (4th ed.). American Educational Research Association.
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. Educational Testing Service.
Aşiret, M. (2023). Impact of missing data on chain equating methods. Educational Measurement Journal, 45(2), 112–130.
Babcock, B., Albano, A., & Raymond, M. (2012). Equipercentile equating in large-scale assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 567–581.
Brauneis, R., & Goodman, E. P. (2018). Transparency and open testing. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 567–610.
Dilek, A., Atalay Kabasakal, H., & Gören, M. (2025). Performance of the Mean/Sigma method in large-scale testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 62(1), 34–52.
Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (2000). Quantifying equatability: Population invariance in score conversions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(1), 1–15.
Dorans, N. J. (2004). Linking scores: Methodologies and issues. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(2), 123–156.
Curcin, M., & Lee, M. W. (2025). Evaluating accuracy and bias of different comparative judgment equating methods against traditional statistical equating. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1538486. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1538486
González, J., & Wiberg, M. (2017). Test equating methodologies in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 82(3), 657–679.
Gübeşi, S., & Uyar, A. (2020). Equipercentile equating in skewed score distributions. Educational Assessment, 25(3), 198–212.
Haebara, T. (1980). Equating test scores based on item response theory. Japanese Psychological Research, 22(3), 127–144.
Hanson, B. (1991). Requirements for equating: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(1), 1–12.
Holland, P. W., & Dorans, N. J. (2006). Linking and equating test scores. Springer.
Issayeva, T. (2021). Test equating for evolving educational standards. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(5), 621–639.
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, adaptation, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors are permitted to post their work online in institutional/disciplinary repositories or on their own websites. Pre-print versions posted online should include a citation and link to the final published version in Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication as soon as the issue is available; post-print versions (including the final publisher's PDF) should include a citation and link to the journal's website.
