What Affects the Quality of Score Transformations? Potential Issues in True-Score Equating Using the Partial Credit Model

Abstract

This simulation study investigated to what extent departures from construct similarity as well as differences in the difficulty and targeting of scales impact the score transformation when scales are equated by means of concurrent calibration using the partial credit model with a common person design. Practical implications of the simulation results are discussed with a focus on scale equating in health-related research settings. The study simulated data for two scales, varying the number of items and the sample sizes. The factor correlation between scales was used to operationalize construct similarity. Targeting of the scales was operationalized through increasing departure from equal difficulty and by varying the dispersion of the item and person parameters in each scale. The results show that low similarity between scales goes along with lower transformation precision. In cases with equal levels of similarity, precision improves in settings where the range of the item parameters is encompassing the person parameters range. With decreasing similarity, score transformation precision benefits more from good targeting. Difficulty shifts up to two logits somewhat increased the estimation bias but without affecting the transformation precision. The observed robustness against difficulty shifts supports the advantage of applying a true-score equating methods over identity equating, which was used as a naive baseline method for comparison. Finally, larger sample size did not improve the transformation precision in this study, longer scales improved only marginally the quality of the equating. The insights from the simulation study are used in a real-data example.