xÏætæŠ 5ì tæú ð “5xÏætæŠ?5ì‰tæú¿ð “5 à ¿ð$l … ú4 [3-1 øˇ§t6§¿tæ¡b¡†ˇa Øˇb “¿ˇc ¡†ˇa Øˇb “¿ˇc Item1 0.642 -2.522 0.187 Item26

xÏætæŠ?5ì‰tæú¿ð�“5à

�Gê lw™

Å «2�¸çÍ`>¿ð$lû˝F

¿b

íl, Yì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?ªW.°7k, Ê¿ð�“í¬˙2Jì

‰tæ2í DIF tæF2ªWBò†ú§t6?‰Mí,l�Ä�ÏÏB×�

wŸÊì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?Ø�MÏæªœjÞ, §t6?‰M%â�

“(,lÏÏ}ÓOtæØ�MíÓ‹7]Ó, OwÙ�1.pé�

Jªœ§t6?‰MÏæú�“,l�Ä�5à, û˝2sˇ§t6?‰

MÏæqÑ0.5£1s�, çÊwF¡b‘Kó°, w,lÏÏ}ÓO?‰MÏæ

‰×7U,líÏÏÓ‹�

ÊÀ¡b£ú¡bs�.°�“_�5ªœ, JwF¡bqìó°8”-, J

ú¡b_��“(FÄí?‰M,lÏÏpéòkÀ¡b,lFÄíÏÏ�

Éœå: �“� ì‰tæ� xÏætæŠ?

95

xÏætæŠ?5ì‰tæú¿ð�“5à ¿ð$l�… ��ú4

�ø� é�

Ê`>812, J`�� ðÅCû˝6;ø−çÞ%âç3(, F×)!…í� ½

bíø…D?‰, ZÛ%â¿ðíj�¦)óÉ’e�

`>¶k��û�õlí �«ÉçÞç3AÿÇ¾’eé5�0lå�(Taiwan As-

sessment on Student Achievement,TASA), wñíÑ� Å¬2üç£ò2<çÞ

ç3AÿÅ‚’eé, ‚àM�l¿J", }&çÞÊç3,‰d5�‘� J"ü

(panel study) y‡ú�øŸ (��û�ý~) ‚¿5Åüý��çÞ, y‚¦w210

%çÞ, ©s�ªWJ"l¿øŸ, òƒò2<H“Ñ¢, ‡(,uÛl¿úŸ� Ê,H

¿ð2Ûú°ø§¿6lJÖŸ¿ð, 7¡‹.°Ÿ¿ðí5Þ, Ê.°¿ðF)}b

vàSªWªœ? u´¿ð}bœò†H[vÞÊvŸ¿ð[Ûøìœ7? Wà: BÞ

Ê�øŸ¿ð2)60}, Ê�ùŸ¿ð2)70}, ?´òQ‡iBÞÊ�ùŸ¿ðí

Aôik�øŸ¿ð? wõ1.`Íà¤, ÄÑsŸ¿ð2tæíØ�1.êró°,

¾�í}b6.°, Ä¤.°Ÿ¿ðF)5Aô, ?H[O.°í<2, 1Ì¶dòQ

íªœ� .°Ÿí¿ðbªWªœ, ÊJ%í¿ðÜ�uW.¦í, ÎÝù6uµ…¿

ð� Í7ÛD†ªN¬tæ¥@Ü� (Item Response Theory, IRT) 2í�“ (equat-

ing) xX, øÖŸí¿ð}b²�A°ø_¾�,í}b, U®Ÿí¿ð}b?[Ê°

ø_¾�,VªWªœ, Ä7®ƒ.°Ÿ¿ð� .°§t6í}b, ˛¤5Èªó�ª

œíñí�

Êtæ¥@Ü�í-Z-ªW�“v, Ûb.°¿ð2¨Öø¶Mì‰tæ (an-

chor item) Vd®Ÿ¿ð5¾�í©!5à� Êì‰tæí²Ï,, .â5¾wb?k

}H[cMt»5qñDÔH, n_¯TÑì‰tæ� Î7ì‰tæ5Õ, tæ¥@Ü

�26�Ö�.°í�“ql, M)‹J«n�

ì‰tæÎ7,H‘KÕ, Çø½b5¾ÄÖ†.âÑÌóætæŠ?, uN¿ð

2ítæ, JúkË�ó°?‰OVAk.°í§t6Èñ, w�úvæíœ0.ó°

v, †vtæx�ÏætæŠ? (Differential Item Functioning, �˚ DIF)� J¿ð2

ítæ� DIF æÊ, †}ßÞ¿ðít�4½æ� Wà: ×ç:5tæúR±Ë–� ×

¿C{¾çÞu´·t�? øO`�)`íç�Aÿ¿ðtæú4�.°íãÞÞ7

k, 6·ut�íý? Ä¤JøM¿ð2¨Ö� DIF tæ, Ê§t6?‰M£tæ¡

b,lvqßÞÏÏ (3¬�, ¬ 82)�

à,FH, JÊ.°Ÿ¿ð2k�“®Ÿí¿ð}b?[Ê°ø_¾�,VªW

ªœ, †ì‰tæí²ÏÎ7.âk}H[cMt»5qñDÔHÕ, yâ5?Ïæt

æŠ?ú¿ð�“5à� Ä¤…û˝ðÊ«n.°¿ð�“v, Jì‰tæ2Ö�

DIF tæ, wú§t6?‰Mí,là�

96


�ù� d.«n

ø� DIF tæí<2

úBóšítænx� DIF, 5šíì2nu_çí? ñ‡1Ìøì™Ä� ñ‡ø

Oíõ¶wÑ:�Ê/_tæ,, à‹Öbíˇ¸ýbíˇí�Ì[Û�F.°íu, v

tæZéý|x� DIF íÛï��(3¬�, ¬ 82) 7 Lord(1980) wÑ¥�ì26�_

ÿÜ, ÄÑw1„5?wFà‰áíª?4, à: Ÿ…s§tÈñí?‰ÿ�F.°,

nû_Ê/_tæ,í[Û.°� Ä¤, ñ‡|Ñ-Ül¾ç6FQ§íì2Ñ:�VA

.°íˇ, O?‰ó°í_A, à‹Ê�ú/_tæ,íœ0�F.°íu, †vtæ

ZéÛ| DIF íÛï��(3¬�, ¬82)� ÇÕ Lord(1980) †wÑÊ.°í§tÈñ-,

ø_tæJx�.°ítæÔ��(, †¤tæx� DIF�

ù� tæ¥@Ü�2í�“j¶

Êtæ¥@Ü��“5É[2ÛÅ—ú˚4 (symmetry)� Èñ.‰4 (group in-

variance)� ó�4 (equity) £¿ðÀ²� (unidimensionality) �4” (Hambleton &

Swaminathan, 1985)� F‚ú˚4u.�uâ FormX �“B FormY C FormY �

“B FormX, �“^‹uó°í, ¹.§S�¿ðÑ¡Î¿ð5à; Èñ.‰4u

N.�²¦S�§t6ÈñªW�“, �“É[u.‰í, ¹.§²¦š…íà; ó

�4uNú©ø_?‰õ5§t67k, Q§k�“ísM¿ð5 FormX C FormY

u³�Ïæí (Lord, 1980); ¿ðÀ²4†NøM¿ðÉ¿¾°øàÊÔ”C?‰�

ÊªW¿ð�“£ªø¥í}&‡, .âlªW¿ð�“íql, Wà: ¨_Èñ

l¿ FormX� ¨_Èñl¿ FormX� àÖýæu°æ�, ·u�“û˝2Ûbql

í¶}� �“qlíj¶'Ö, ¨Ö�Óœˇñ�“ql (Random Groups Equating

Design)� ÀøˇñÌ©�“ql (Single Group Design with Counterbalancing) £u

°tæÝ�gÈñ�“ql (Common-Item Nonequivalent Group Equating Design)

�� Óœˇñ�“ql¹l¿6Óœ²¦� _çí§tÈñ, øk�“¿ðJ£ìj

�#8l¿ (Michael & Robert, 1995)� ¤qlucì§tÈñÈí?‰}ºó�, ¹

.°Èñ§t6?‰¾�í�Ìb£™ÄÏÑó°, FJ.°ÈñÊ.°¿ð,[Û

íÏæuâ®¿ðÈíØ�ÏæFßÞ, Ä¤�“¬˙2§t6?‰í¾�1.Ûb

%¬�² (Hambleton & Swaminthan, 1985;Kolen & Brennan, 1995 )� ÀøˇñÌ

©�“ql†uøk�“5.°¿ð FormX£ FormY , #8°ø§tÈñl¿, ©

P§t6Q§sM¿ð, FJ¿ð5l(ßå}àƒ§t6T�í¥@� Ä¤ÀÈñ

qlíj¶¹Iøší§t6lQ§FormX5¿ð(yQ§FormY ¿ð, 7Çøš

§t6lQ§ FormY 5¿ð(yQ§ FormX 5¿ð, à¤†ªfnßåÄÖí

97


à (Kolen & Brennan, 1995)� ¤qlÉ�ÀøÈñQ§¿ð, Ä¤Ê�“¡b,l¬

˙2§t6í?‰¾�1.Ûb%¬�² (Kolen & Brennan, 1995)� u°tæÝ�g

Èñ�“qlÑk�“í.°¿ð2î¨Öø¶Mu°tæ (common item)� ø¤.

°¿ð}�#8?‰.�íÈñl¿, FJ§t6Ê.°¿ðF)íÏæ¨�§t6

ÈñÈíÏæ£.°¿ðÈtæØ�íÏæ� Ä¤Û‚à§t6Êu°tæí[Ûl

�|.°§t65Ïæ, âk§t6¨Ö.°Èñ, w?‰¾�?.°, Ä¤.â‚à

u°tæV�“§t6?‰}º.Ìú�“ÄíÏÏ (Kolen & Brennan, 1995)�

,Hú�¿ð�“ql2,J.°¿ðÈítæ¡bC?‰¾�.Ê°ø¾� (scale)

,, †bløw�²Aó°¾�, n?ªW�“�¥_�²í¬˙˚Ñ¾�“ (scaling)�

cq (θX ; aX ; bX ; CX) £ (θY ; aY ; bY ; CY ) }�ÑFormXDFormY ,5?‰¡b

Dtæ¡b5,lM, †wøÅ—-�É[:

θX = AθY + B, aX =aY

A, bX = AbY + B, CX = CY ,

7BbªJUà Mean/Sigma�Mean/Mean £ Characteristic Curve �“¶��²j

¶ (Kolen & Brennan, 1995; Bradley & Anton, 2002), ,l A M¸ B M, yøsM

¿ð�²ƒ°ø¾�,� Mean/Sigma�²j¶ul}�,l FormX ¸ FormY s

M.°¿ðítæ¡b, 7sM.°¿ð2u°tæítæ¡b†}�.°ís , }

�‚àu°tæØ�¡bí�Ìb¸™ÄÏ, l� FormX ¸ FormY ¿ðtæ¡b

(4�²íé0 A ¸i� B(Kolen & Brennan, 1995)� 7 Mean/ Mean �“¶†u

}�‚àu°tæ¡��¡bDØ�¡bí�Ìb, l�¡b(4�²íé0 A ¸i

� B(Kolen & Brennan, 1995)� 7âk Mean/Sigma £ Mean/ Mean ¶·�I¡�

�¡bÊ²ì¾“�b A ¸ B 2FrÆíiH (3¬�, ¬ 82), Haebara(1980) £

Stocking & Lord(1983) 4T| Characteristic Curve �“¶, °v5?Ø�£¡��

¡b, J^k‡¶.—� T¶,, ll�sPx�ó°?‰ θa í§t6, Ê FormX £

FormY sM¿ð,u°tæíöõ}b (true scores)�

ξxa(θ) =∑

P (θa, ax, bx, cx), ξya(θ) =∑

P (θa, ay, by, cy),

âkuUàu°tæ, FJ-�t�?}A :

by = Abx + B, ay =ax

A, cy = cx.

Ñ° A £ B U)sö}bÈÏæí|üM, †ª%â°|-� F ƒbí”üM7×

), wƒbÑ

F =1

N

N∑a=1

(ξxa − ξya)

w2, N Ñ§t6Ab, 1J]c (iterative) íj�l� A £ B�

ã¯,Hú��²¶, øOû˝6wÑ¡��í,lMœ ì7J Mean/Sigma

ª Mean/Mean �“(F),lœ7, O Baker & AI-Karni(1991) !k�Ìb,

98


lª™ÄÏ,lV) ì, 7wÑ Mean/Mean œ7� 7 Characteristic Curve �“

¶3bu‚àó°?‰6Ê°øtæ,í�úœ0uó�í, Ä¤œ Mean/Mean ¸

Mean/Sigma ¶5?œÖítæ¡b, �“^‹œ�ü (Baker & AI-Karni, 1991)�

Haebara(1980) £ Stocking & Lord(1983) †wÑ Mean/Sigma £ Mean/Mean ,l

F)5 A� B MªTÑ Characteristic Curve �“¶í–áM�

�ú� _Òû˝!‹

Ñnjtæ�“v, xÏætæŠ?ì‰tæú§t6?‰,��ü�íà� …

û˝SàÚ7_Òj�, �J}&À¡b£ú¡btæ¥@Ü�Ê.°ªWxÏætæ

Š?ì‰tæí8”-ú?‰M,l�Ä�5à�

…û˝SàÚ7,ñ MATLAB ªŸ˙�qì§t6í?‰}0, ,§t6 2000

A, }Ñsˇ, ©øˇ§tAbÑ 1000 A�?‰í}0�øˇÑ�G}º�Ìb£™Ä

ÏÑ N(0,1); �ùˇ§t6?Ñ�G}º, O�Ìb£™ÄÏ}Ñ N(0.5, 1) £ N(1, 1)

s�, Jªœsˇ§t6?‰.°vtæ�“(?‰,l�Ä�5Ïæ� tæÀ¡bí

Ø�£ú¡bíØ�� ¡��£“¿�†ùà Bradley & Anton (2002) 2tæí®á

¡b}0, tæu 90 æ, ì‰tæÑ 1-10 æ, �øˇ§t6T� 1-50 æ, �ùˇ§

t6T� 1-10 æ£ 51-90 æ, ®tæ¡bà[ 3-1� [ 3-2� ÇÑ«n.°ªWxÏæ

tæŠ?5ì‰tæú�“^‹5à, û˝2Sà 0%�10%�20%�30%�40% �ü�

.°ªWxÏætæŠ?5ì‰tæ, ¹Êì‰tæ2}�Ñ 0 æ� 1 æ� 2 æ� 3 æ

£ 4 æ�ÏætæŠ?8”ßÞ, 7wØ�MÏæ¢}Ñ 0.4� 0.6 £ 0.8 ú�� …û

˝2,l�Ä� (accuracy of estimate) [N,lÏÏ (error of the estimate) MB

ü, †,l�Ä�Bò� û˝2Sà?‰MöMD?‰M,lMí�Ì�jÏTÑ,l

í�Ä�, wt�à-:

MSE(θ, θ) =

N∑i=1

(θi − θi)2

N

w2 N : H[§t6Ab, θ = (θ1, θ2, θ3, ..., θN): [ý§t6?‰MíöM, θ =

(θ1, θ2, θ3, ..., θN): [ý§t6?‰Mí,lM�

ã¯,H, …û˝u_ÒßÞ 120 �.° ¯, ® ¯y½µÏW 100 Ÿí_Ò

tð, JªWxÏætæŠ?ú¿ð�“v, §t6?‰,l�Ä�5à� 7û˝¬

˙2lJ MATLAB ªŸ˙�qìsˇ§t6í?‰M£?‰}0, yº¯[ 3-1 £

[ 3-2tæ¡bJ BILOGMG ,l,ñ, ,l�“vsˇ§t6?‰MD¡b,lM,

5(‚àt�°|§t6?‰Mí MSE Jªœ,l�Ä��

99


[ 3-1 �øˇ§t6§¿tæ¡b

¡��a Ø�b “¿�c ¡��a Ø�b “¿�c

Item1 0.642 -2.522 0.187 Item26 0.896 -0.291 0.082

Item2 0.806 -1.902 0.149 Item27 0.679 0.067 0.161

Item3 0.956 -1.351 0.108 Item28 0.996 0.706 0.210

Item4 0.972 -1.092 0.142 Item29 0.420 -2.713 0.171

Item5 1.045 -0.234 0.373 Item30 0.977 0.213 0.280

Item6 0.834 -0.317 0.135 Item31 1.257 0.116 0.209

Item7 0.614 0.037 0.172 Item32 0.984 0.273 0.121

Item8 0.796 0.268 0.101 Item33 1.174 0.840 0.091

Item9 1.171 -0.571 0.192 Item34 1.601 0.745 0.043

Item10 1.514 0.317 0.312 Item35 1.876 1.485 0.177

Item11 0.842 0.295 0.211 Item36 0.620 -1.208 0.191

Item12 1.754 0.778 0.123 Item37 0.994 0.189 0.242

Item13 0.839 1.514 0.170 Item38 1.246 0.345 0.187

Item14 0.998 1.744 0.057 Item39 1.175 0.962 0.100

Item15 0.727 1.951 0.194 Item40 1.715 1.592 0.096

Item16 0.892 -1.152 0.238 Item41 0.769 -1.944 0.161

Item17 0.789 -0.526 0.115 Item42 0.934 -1.348 0.174

Item18 1.604 1.104 0.475 Item43 0.496 -1.348 0.328

Item19 0.722 0.961 0.151 Item44 0.888 -0.859 0.199

Item20 1.549 1.314 0.197 Item45 0.953 -0.190 0.212

Item21 0.700 -2.198 0.184 Item46 1.022 -0.116 0.158

Item22 0.799 -1.621 0.141 Item47 1.012 0.421 0.288

Item23 1.022 -0.761 0.439 Item48 1.605 1.377 0.120

Item24 0.860 -1.179 0.131 Item49 1.009 -1.126 0.133

Item25 1.248 -0.610 0.145 Item50 1.310 -0.067 0.141

100


[ 3-2 �ùˇ§t6§¿tæ¡b

¡�� a Ø� b “¿� c ¡�� a Ø� b “¿� c

Item1 0.642 -2.522 0.187 Item66 1.217 -0.290 0.138

Item2 0.806 -1.902 0.149 Item67 0.891 0.157 0.162

Item3 0.956 -1.351 0.108 Item68 0.972 0.256 0.126

Item4 0.972 -1.092 0.142 Item69 1.206 -0.463 0.269

Item5 1.045 -0.234 0.373 Item70 1.354 0.122 0.211

Item6 0.834 -0.317 0.135 Item71 0.935 -0.061 0.086

Item7 0.614 0.037 0.172 Item72 1.438 0.692 0.209

Item8 0.796 0.268 0.101 Item73 1.613 0.686 0.096

Item9 1.171 -0.571 0.192 Item74 1.199 1.097 0.032

Item10 1.514 0.317 0.312 Item75 0.786 -1.132 0.226

Item51 0.957 0.192 0.194 Item76 1.041 0.131 0.150

Item52 1.269 0.683 0.150 Item77 1.285 0.170 0.077

Item53 1.664 1.107 0.162 Item78 1.219 0.605 0.128

Item54 1.511 1.393 0.123 Item79 1.473 1.668 0.187

Item55 0.561 -1.865 0.240 Item80 1.334 0.530 0.075

Item56 0.728 -0.678 0.244 Item81 0.965 -1.862 0.152

Item57 1.665 -0.036 0.109 Item82 0.710 -1.589 0.138

Item58 1.401 0.117 0.057 Item83 0.523 -1.754 0.149

Item59 1.391 0.031 0.181 Item84 1.134 -0.604 0.181

Item60 1.259 0.259 0.229 Item85 0.709 -0.680 0.064

Item61 0.804 -2.283 0.192 Item86 0.496 -0.443 0.142

Item62 0.734 -1.475 0.233 Item87 0.979 0.181 0.124

Item63 1.523 -0.995 0.175 Item88 0.970 0.351 0.151

Item64 0.720 -1.068 0.128 Item89 0.524 -2.265 0.220

Item65 0.892 -0.334 0.211 Item90 0.944 -0.084 0.432

�û� _Òû˝!‹

ø� .°ªW DIF tæú,l�Ä�5ªœ

…û˝2Ñ«n.°ªWxÏætæŠ?5ì‰tæú¿ð�“5à, Ä¤ì

‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?íªWqìÑ 0%�10%�20%�30%�40% �ü�, _Ò}&!

‹Ìà[ 4-1 D[ 4-2�

101


[ 4-1 À¡b5tæ�“í,lÏÏ

À¡b (1PL)MSE

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Group1 0.167 0.169 0.169 0.168 0.169∆θ=0.5

Group2 0.187 0.189 0.193 0.200 0.213b=0.4

Mean 0.177 0.179 0.181 0.184 0.191

Group1 0.169 0.168 0.168 0.167 0.168∆θ=0.5

Group2 0.191 0.194 0.200 0.212 0.236b=0.6

Mean 0.180 0.181 0.184 0.190 0.202

Group1 0.169 0.168 0.167 0.168 0.169∆θ=0.5

Group2 0.186 0.193 0.208 0.233 0.265b=0.8

Mean 0.178 0.180 0.187 0.201 0.217

Group1 0.169 0.169 0.170 0.167 0.167∆θ=1

Group2 0.251 0.251 0.258 0.275 0.291b=0.4

Mean 0.210 0.210 0.214 0.221 0.229

Group1 0.167 0.168 0.169 0.169 0.167∆θ=1

Group2 0.248 0.257 0.269 0.283 0.322b=0.6

Mean 0.207 0.213 0.219 0.226 0.245

Group1 0.168 0.168 0.168 0.168 0.168∆θ=1

Group2 0.249 0.258 0.281 0.316 0.356b=0.8

Mean 0.209 0.213 0.225 0.242 0.262

JÀ¡b�“_�� sˇ§t6?‰ÏæMÑ 0.5(∆θ=0.5)� ì‰tæ2xÏæ

tæŠ?Ø�MÏæÑ 0.6 ÑW, çì‰tæ2Ì DIF tææÊv, sˇ§t6w

?‰�Ì,lÏÏMÑ 0.180� Jçì‰tæ2 DIF tæÓ‹ƒ 40% v, w�Ìí

?‰,lÏÏÓ‹ƒ 0.202, ÏÏÓ‹7 0.022, óúÓ‹7 12.2% íÏÏ; JJú¡

b_�� sˇ§t6?‰ÏæMÑ1(∆θ=1)� ì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?Ø�MÏæ

Ñ0.8ÑW, çì‰tæ2Ì DIF tææÊv, sˇ§t6w?‰�Ì,lÏÏMÑ

0.273� Jçì‰tæ2 DIF tæ* 0% Ó‹ƒ 40% v, w�Ìí?‰,lÏÏ}�

Ñ 0.278�0.283�0.298 £ 0.320, D³� DIF ì‰tæªœ, ÏÏÓ‹7 0.005� 0.01�

0.025 £ 0.047, ¹óú}�Ó‹7 1.8%� 3.6%� 9.2% £ 17.2%í,lÏÏ�

102


[ 4-2 ú¡b5tæ�“í,lÏÏ

ú¡b (3PL)MSE

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Group1 0.252 0.250 0.251 0.251 0.252∆θ = 0.5

Group2 0.226 0.227 0.229 0.237 0.250b=0.4

Mean 0.239 0.238 0.240 0.244 0.251

Group1 0.254 0.252 0.248 0.251 0.253∆θ=0.5

Group2 0.221 0.224 0.234 0.249 0.274b=0.6

Mean 0.238 0.238 0.241 0.250 0.264

Group1 0.250 0.252 0.253 0.251 0.253∆θ=0.5

Group2 0.221 0.227 0.236 0.259 0.307b=0.8

Mean 0.235 0.239 0.244 0.255 0.280

Group1 0.254 0.250 0.253 0.250 0.252∆θ=1

Group2 0.290 0.292 0.306 0.316 0.333b=0.4

Mean 0.272 0.271 0.280 0.283 0.292

Group1 0.254 0.253 0.255 0.254 0.250∆θ=1

Group2 0.294 0.295 0.304 0.328 0.363b=0.6

Mean 0.274 0.274 0.280 0.291 0.307

Group1 0.252 0.252 0.252 0.256 0.253∆θ=1

Group2 0.293 0.304 0.314 0.339 0.386b=0.8

Mean 0.273 0.278 0.283 0.298 0.320

ã¯,H£*[ 4-1 D[ 4-2 2)ø, .�w�“_�²ÏÑÀ¡bCú¡b_

�� sˇ§t6?‰MÏæÑ 0.5 C 1 £xÏætæŠ?íÏæÖ×, F),l!‹·

éý|çxÏætæŠ?ªW (xÏætæŠ?æb) Ó‹v, §t6í?‰,lMÏ

Ï}ÓOÓ‹�

ù� xÏætæŠ?wØ�MÏæú?‰,l�Ä�5ªœ

…û˝øì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?Ø�MÏæqìÑ 0.4� 0.6� £0.8ú�, _

Ò}&!‹Ìà[ 4-1 D[ 4-2 Fý� JÀ¡b�“_�� sˇ§t6?‰MÏæÑ

1(∆θ=1) £ì‰tæ2 DIF tæ 30% ÑW, ç DIF tæíØ�ÏæMÑ 0.4 v, s

ˇ§t6?‰M%â�“(w�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.221; Ø�ÏæMÑ0.6v, �Ì,lÏ

ÏÑ 0.226; Ø�ÏæMÑ 0.8 v, �Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.242� ¢Jú¡b�“_�� sˇ

§t6?‰MÏæÑ 0.5(∆θ = 0.5 ) £ì‰tæ2 DIF tæ 20% ÑW, ç DIF tæ

íØ�ÏæMÑ 0.4 v, sˇ§t6?‰M%â�“(w�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.240; Ø�

ÏæMÑ 0.6 v, �Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.241; Ø�ÏæMÑ 0.8 v, �Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.244�

103


ÊÀ¡b�“_�-, JwFqló°8”, §t6?‰M,lÏÏ}ÓOtæØ

�MíÓ‹7]Ó, OwÙ�1.pé, °ÜÊú¡b_�-8”?ÓOØ�MÓ‹7

,lÏÏÓ‹�

ú� §t6?‰MÏæú�“,l�Ä��5à

Ê.°§t6?‰MÏæ-, xÏætæŠ?ú�“,l�Ä�5_Òtð!‹

Ìc[ 4-1D[ 4-2, û˝2§t6?‰MÏæ}Ñ 0.5 £ 1 s�, ÊÀ¡b_�-, J

ì‰tæ2Ì DIF tæ (0%) æÊ, sˇ§t6?‰MÏæÑ 0.5 v, �“(í�Ì,

lÏÏÑ 0.178; 7?‰MÏæÑ1v�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.206, Ó‹7 0.028, ¹?‰MÏ

æÑ 1 vóúk?‰MÏæÑ 0.5 v,lÏÏÓ‹7 15.7%, JJ DIF tæíØ�M

ÏæÑ 0.8 /ì‰tæ2� 40% x�ÏætæŠ?v, w§t6?‰MÏæÑ 0.5 v

�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.217, ?‰MÏæÑ1v�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.262, ÏÏÓ‹7 0.045, ¹

óúÓ‹720.7%� JÊú¡b_�-, /ì‰tæ2Ì DIF tæ (0%) æÊ, sˇ§

t6?‰MÏæÑ 0.5v, �“(í�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.237; 7?‰MÏæÑ1v�Ì,

lÏÏÑ 0.273, Ó‹7 0.036, ¹?‰MÏæÑ1vóúk?‰MÏæÑ 0.5 vÓ‹7

15.2% í,lÏÏ,JJ DIFtæíØ�MÏæÑ 0.8 /ì‰tæ2Ó‹B 40% x�

ÏætæŠ?v, w§t6?‰MÏæÑ 0.5 v�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.280, ?‰MÏæÑ

1v�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.320, ÏÏÓ‹7 0.04, ¹óúÓ‹7 14.3% í,lÏÏ� 7ç

ÊwF¡bqìó°í8”-, É5?sˇ§t6?‰íÏæv, Jú¡b_�� ì‰

tæ2� 40% xtæÏæŠ?£ì‰tæØ�MÏæ 0.4 ÑW, §t6?‰MÏæÑ

0.5 v�“(�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.251, J§t6?‰MÏæÑ1v, �“(�Ì,lÏÏ

Ñ 0.320, ÏÏÓ‹7 0.069, óúÓ‹727.5%� ãh,H£[ 4-1 D[ 4-2 2F�ª

êÛ, çF�¡bqìó°vÉ5?§t6?‰Ïæv, w,lÏÏ}ÓO?‰MÏæ

‰×7U,líÏÏÓ‹�

û� À¡b£ú¡b_�ú�“,l�Ä�5à

ÊÀ¡b£ú¡bs�.°�“_�-, _Òû˝F)sˇ§t6?‰M,l�

Ä�Ìc[ 4-1 D[ 4-2� Jsˇ§t6?‰MÏæÑ0.5(∆θ=0.5)� ì‰tæ2xÏ

ætæŠ?Ø�MÑ 0.6 £ì‰tæ2� 40% tæ� DIF ÑW, sˇ§t6?‰

M%âÀ¡b_��“(w�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.202, 7âú¡b,�(w?‰M�ÌÏ

ÏÑ 0.264, ú¡bF,líÏÏœÀ¡bò| 0.062; JJsˇ§t6?‰MÏæÑ

1(∆θ = 1)� ì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?Ø�MÑ 0.4 £ì‰tæ2� 20%tæ�

DIF ÑW, sˇ§t6?‰M%âÀ¡b_��“(w�Ì,lÏÏÑ 0.214, 7âú

¡b,�(w?‰M�ÌÏÏÑ 0.280, ú¡bF,líÏÏœÀ¡bò| 0.066� ó

104


¯,H£[ 4-1 D[ 4-2 2ªêÛ, çwF¡bqìó°vú¡b_��“(FÄ

í?‰M,lÏÏpéòkÀ¡b,lFÄíÏÏ�

�ü� !�

Yì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?ªW.°7k, ÊwF¡bqìó°í81-, .�

u%âÀ¡b_�Cú¡b_��“(, sˇ§t6�Ì?‰,lM}ÓOì‰tæ2

DIF tæíªWÓ‹7×Û]Óí�‘, «wç DIF tæ*30%Ó‹B40%v (DIF

tæâ3æÓ‹B4æ), §t6?‰M,lÏÏyÑpé� Ä¤, ªR�|¿ð�“í

¬˙2Jì‰tæ2í DIFtæF2ªWBò†ú§t6?‰Mí,l�Ä�ÏÏB

×�

wŸÊì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?Ø�MÏæªœjÞ, û˝2øwÏæqìÑ

0.4� 0.6 £ 0.8 ú|�, ÊwF¡b‘Kqìó°í8$-, .�UàÀ¡bCú¡b

_�, w§t6?‰M%â�“(,lÏÏ}ÓOtæØ�MíÓ‹7]Ó, OwÙ�

1.pé�

Jªœ§t6?‰MÏæú�“,l�Ä��5à, û˝2sˇ§t6?‰M

ÏæqÑ 0.5 £ 1 s�, çÊwF¡b‘Kó°, É5?§t6?‰Ïæv, w,lÏ

Ï}ÓO?‰MÏæ‰×7U,líÏÏÓ‹�

ÊÀ¡b£ú¡bs�.°�“_�5ªœ, JwF¡bqìó°W”-, _Òû

˝F)sˇ§t6?‰M,l�Ä�*[ 4-1D[ 4-2 2ªêÛ.�S�¡b ¯,ú

¡b_��“(FÄí?‰M,lÏÏpéòkÀ¡b,lFÄíÏÏ�

ã¯,H, JÊ.°Ÿ¿ð2k�“®Ÿí¿ð}b?[Ê°ø_¾�,VªW

ªœ, †ì‰tæí²ÏÎ7.âk}H[cMt»5qñDÔHÕ, yâ5?xÏæ

tæŠ?ú¿ð�“5à� *…û˝2ªêÛçì‰tæ2xÏætæŠ?ªWÓ

‹, ,lÏÏ?}ÓO]Ó, Ä¤Ê�“¬˙2yvF²ì‰tæ, J‚ì‰tæ2Ì

DIF tææÊ, n?U�“,l2íÏÏÁýB|ü�

105


¡5d.

ø� 2d¶}

3¬� (¬82) tæ¥@Ü�í�Ü(�ú)-tæRÏíÄi� û3’m,10(6), 7-11�

ù� Ld¶}

Baker, F. B., & Al-Karna, A.(1991). A comparison of two procedures for com-

puting IRT equating coefficients. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 147-162

Bradley A. Hanson, & Anton A. Beguin (2002). Obtaining a common Scale

for Item Response Theory Item Parameters Using Separate Versus Concurrent Esti-

mation in the Common-Item Equating Design. Applied Psychological Measurement,

26(1), 3-24

Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects

model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153-168.

Coliis, K. F. (1983). Development of a group test of mathematical under-

standing using superitems SOLO technique. Journal of Science and Mathematics

Education in South East Asia, 6, 5-14.

Collis, K. F., & Davey, H. A. 0986). A technique for evaluating skills in high

school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 651-663.

Baker, F. B.,& Al-Karna, A.(1991). A comparison of two procedures for com-

puting IRT equating coefficients. Item Response Theory: Principles of Application.

Boston: Kivwer Nijhoff.

Haebara, T. (1980). Equating logistic ability scale by weighted least square

method. Japanese Psychological Research, 22, 144-149.

Baker, F. B., & Al-Karna, A.(1991). A comparison of two procedures for com-

puting IRT equating coefficients. Test Equating: Methods and Practices. New

York:Springer-Verlag

Lord, F. M.(1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical of Testing

Problems.NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment

tests. Copenhagen: Institute of Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980.

106


Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.)

Romberg, T. A., Collis, K. F., Donovan, B. F., Buchanan, A. E., & Romberg, M.

N. (1982). The development of mathematical problem solving superitems(Report of

NIE/EC Item Development Project). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education

Research.

Romberg, T. A., Jurdak, M. E., Collis, K. F., & Buchanan, A. E. (1982).

Construct validity of a set of mathematical superitems(Report of NIE/ECS Item

Development Project). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item

response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.

Sireci, S. G., Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1991). On the reliability of testlet-

based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 237-247.

Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive

testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185-201.

Wainer, H. (1995). Precision and differential item functioning on a testlet-based

test: The 1991 Law School Admissions Test as an example. Applied Measurement

in Education, 8, 157-186.

Wainer, H. & Wang, X. (2000). Using a new statistical model for testlet to

score TOEFL. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 203-220.

Wainer, H. & Wang, X. (2001). Using a new statistical model for testlet to

score TOEFL. TOEFL Technical Report TR-16. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing

Service.

Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T., & Du, Z. (2000). Testlet response theory: An

analog for the 3-PL useful in adaptive testing. In Computerized adaptive testing:

Theory and practice (W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas, Eds.). Boston, MA:

Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Wainer, H. & Thissen, D. (1996). How is reliability related to the quality

of test scores? What is the effect of local dependence on reliability? Educational

Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(1), 22-29.

Wang, X., Bradlow, E., & Wainer, H. (2002). A general Bayesian model for

testlet: theory and applications. GRE Board Professional Report No. 98. Princeton,

107


NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wang, W.-C., & Wilson, M. R. (2003). The Rasch testlet models. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

108


Impacts of DIF Anchor Items on Test Equating

Liang-Ting Tsai Yih-Shan Shih

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of anchor items

exhibiting DIF on test equating under the one parameter and three parame-

ter logistic models. Four independent variables were manipulated: (a) item

response models: the Rasch model and the 3-parameter logistic model; (b)

percentage of DIF items in the anchor test: 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%; (c)

magnitude of DIF: 0.4 and 0.6; (d) difference of mean ability between refer-

ence and focal groups: 0.5 and 1.0. The dependent variable was the MSE

of latent trait estimation. Through the Monte Carlo studies, MSE were in-

creasing when (1) the percentage of DIF items in the anchor test increasing;

(2) the magnitude of DIF becomes larger; (3) the difference of mean ability

between groups increasing; The latent trait parameters recovery were better

under Rasch model than 3PL model.

Keywords: equating, anchor item, differential item functioning

109

Documents

xÏætæŠ 5ì tæú ð “5xÏætæŠ?5ì‰tæú¿ð “5 à ¿ð$l … ú4 [3-1 øˇ§t6§¿tæ¡b¡†ˇa Øˇb “¿ˇc ¡†ˇa Øˇb “¿ˇc Item1 0.642 -2.522 0.187 Item26