{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023668639053254437, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0039447731755424065, 'mean_word_length': 5.0476190476190474, '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}}
Common-Person Equating with the Rasch Model

Two procedures, one based on item difficulties, the other based on person abilities, were used to equate 14 forms of a reading comprehension test using the Rasch model. These forms had no items in common. For practical purposes, the two procedures produced equivalent results. An advantage of common-person equating for testing the unidimensionality assumption is pointed out, and the need for caution in interpreting tests of common-item invariance is stressed.