Equating test forms is an essential activity in standardized testing, with increased importance with the accountability systems in existence through the mandate of Adequate Yearly Progress. It is through equating that scores from different test forms become comparable, which allows for the tracking of changes in the performance of students from one year to the next. This study compares three different item response theory scaling methods (fixed common item parameter, Stocking & Lord, and Concurrent Calibration) with respect to examinee classification into performance categories, and estimation of the ability parameter, when the content of the test form changes slightly from year to year, and the examinee ability distribution changes. The results indicate that calibration methods, especially concurrent calibration, produced more stable results than the transformation method.