Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T17:45:43.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nominally and Rigorously Parallel Test Forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Frederic M. Lord
Frederic M. Lord*
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When several test forms are used interchangeably, they will not in practice, despite all efforts, be rigorously parallel. A definition of the standard error of measurement appropriate for this type of situation can be provided; however, it will be different from the definition in classical test theory. Appropriate formulas for the standard error of measurement and for other related quantities under both definitions are derived and compared; also sample statistics for estimating these quantities.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 1964 , pp. 335 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The writer is indebted to Lee Cronbach and Julian Stanley for many helpful suggestions for revising a draft of this paper. Part of the work was carried out while the writer was Brittingham Visiting Professor at the University of Wisconsin. This work was supported in part by contract Nonr-2752(00) between the Office of Naval Research and Educational Testing Service. Reproduction in whole or in part for any purpose of the United States Government is permitted. The term nominally parallel was suggested by Lee Cronbach.

References

Buros, O. K. Schematization of old and new concepts of test reliability based upon parametric models. Paper read at A.E.R.A. and N.C.M.U.E., Chicago, February, 1963.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. and Azuma, H. Internal-consistency reliability formulas applied to randomly sampled single-factor tests: An empirical comparison. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1962, 22, 645–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N. and Gleser, G. C. Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. Brit. J. statist. Psychol., 1963, 16, 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. Sampling fluctuations resulting from the sampling of test items. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. Test reliability—A correction. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1962, 22, 511–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajaratnam, N. Reliability formulas for independent decision data when reliability data are matched. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rulon, P. J. A simplified procedure for determining the reliability of a test by splithalves. Harvard educ. Rev., 1939, 9, 99–103.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar