Investigating the Effectiveness of Equating Designs for Constructed-Response Tests in Large-Scale Assessments

Using data from a large-scale exam, in this study we compared various designs for equating constructed-response (CR) tests to determine which design was most effective in producing equivalent scores across the two tests to be equated. In the context of classical equating methods, four linking designs were examined: (a) an anchor set containing common CR items, (b) an anchor set incorporating common CR items rescored, (c) an external multiple-choice (MC) anchor test, and (d) an equivalent groups design incorporating rescored CR items (no anchor test). The use of CR items without rescoring resulted in much larger bias than the other designs. The use of an external MC anchor resulted in the next largest bias. The use of a rescored CR anchor and the equivalent groups design led to similar levels of equating error.