{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021148036253776436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.76530612244898, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Thinking About Linking

Despite over a century of aligning test and examination scales, the theory of linking has received relatively little attention. Recently, though, frameworks for classifying linking relationships have proliferated, both in England and the United States. Limitations of U.S. frameworks, particularly the idea that linking relationships ought to be classified along a continuum representing degree of similarity to equating, are highlighted by linking challenges faced in England. A new framework, which focuses more upon definitions of comparability than methods for linking standards, highlights alternative ways of thinking about linking.