No abstract

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that *e photographer suspected tiiat tiie copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at tiie upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT 1981, 41 The computer program (LINK) described calculates item difficulties for common or paired test items on two Rasch calibrated tests. In addition, it re-calibrates the test item difficulties for all nonpaired test items and centers all items onto a common scale.A voluminous number of articles has recently appeared regarding test equating with the Rasch model (Engelhard, 1980; Guskey, 1979;Lenke and Canner, 1980). Reckase (1979) found that the major axis linking technique for Rasch item difficulties did well regardless of the number of items in common between tests if sample sizes of 300 or more were used. The major axis method presented by Reckase and a similar method suggested by Wright (1979) assume that the correlation between common items shared by two tests is 1.00. Further, centering the item difficulties onto a common scale may be accomplished by a linear transformation. The purpose of this paper was to describe a computer program entitled LINK which utilizes the computational strategy suggested by Wright.Like the major axis method, Wright's procedure computes the average of the differences between the common item difficulty estimates: in which d, represents item difficulties for Test 1, d2 indicates item difficulties for Test 2, and p is the number of paired items.

No abstract

No abstract