首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 218 毫秒
1.
The credibility of standard‐setting cut scores depends in part on two sources of consistency evidence: intrajudge and interjudge consistency. Although intrajudge consistency feedback has often been provided to Angoff judges in practice, more evidence is needed to determine whether it achieves its intended effect. In this randomized experiment with 36 judges, non‐numeric item‐level intrajudge consistency feedback was provided to treatment‐group judges after the first and second rounds of Angoff ratings. Compared to the judges in the control condition, those receiving the feedback significantly improved their intrajudge consistency, with the effect being stronger after the first round than after the second round. To examine whether this feedback has deleterious effects on between‐judge consistency, I also examined interjudge consistency at the cut score level and the item level using generalizability theory. The results showed that without the feedback, cut score variability worsened; with the feedback, idiosyncratic item‐level variability improved. These results suggest that non‐numeric intrajudge consistency feedback achieves its intended effect and potentially improves interjudge consistency. The findings contribute to standard‐setting feedback research and provide empirical evidence for practitioners planning Angoff procedures.  相似文献   

2.
Evidence to support the credibility of standard setting procedures is a critical part of the validity argument for decisions made based on tests that are used for classification. One area in which there has been limited empirical study is the impact of standard setting judge selection on the resulting cut score. One important issue related to judge selection is whether the extent of judges’ content knowledge impacts their perceptions of the probability that a minimally proficient examinee will answer the item correctly. The present article reports on two studies conducted in the context of Angoff‐style standard setting for medical licensing examinations. In the first study, content experts answered and subsequently provided Angoff judgments for a set of test items. After accounting for perceived item difficulty and judge stringency, answering the item correctly accounted for a significant (and potentially important) impact on expert judgment. The second study examined whether providing the correct answer to the judges would result in a similar effect to that associated with knowing the correct answer. The results suggested that providing the correct answer did not impact judgments. These results have important implications for the validity of standard setting outcomes in general and on judge recruitment specifically.  相似文献   

3.
Judgmental standard-setting methods, such as the Angoff(1971) method, use item performance estimates as the basis for determining the minimum passing score (MPS). Therefore, the accuracy, of these item peformance estimates is crucial to the validity of the resulting MPS. Recent researchers (Shepard, 1995; Impara & Plake, 1998; National Research Council. 1999) have called into question the ability of judges to make accurate item performance estimates for target subgroups of candidates, such as minimally competent candidates. The propose of this study was to examine the intra- and inter-rater consistency of item performance estimates from an Angoff standard setting. Results provide evidence that item pelformance estimates were consistent within and across panels within and across years. Factors that might have influenced this high degree of reliability, in the item performance estimates in a standard setting study are discussed.  相似文献   

4.
Cut scores, estimated using the Angoff procedure, are routinely used to make high-stakes classification decisions based on examinee scores. Precision is necessary in estimation of cut scores because of the importance of these decisions. Although much has been written about how these procedures should be implemented, there is relatively little literature providing empirical support for specific approaches to providing training and feedback to standard-setting judges. This article presents a multivariate generalizability analysis designed to examine the impact of training and feedback on various sources of error in estimation of cut scores for a standard-setting procedure in which multiple independent groups completed the judgments. The results indicate that after training, there was little improvement in the ability of judges to rank order items by difficulty but there was a substantial improvement in inter-judge consistency in centering ratings. The results also show a substantial group effect. Consistent with this result, the direction of change for the estimated cut score was shown to be group dependent.  相似文献   

5.
Competency examinations in a variety of domains require setting a minimum standard of performance. This study examines the issue of whether judges using the two most popular methods for setting cut scores (Angoff and Nedelsky methods) use different sources of information when making their judgments. Thirty-one judges were assigned randomly to the two methods to set cut scores for a high school graduation test in reading comprehension. These ratings were then related to characteristics of the items as well as to empirically obtained p values. Results indicate that judges using the Angoff method use a wider variety of information and yield estimates closer to the actual p values. The characteristics of items used in the study were effective predictors of judges' ratings, but were far less effective in predicting p values  相似文献   

6.
An Angoff standard setting study generally yields judgments on a number of items by a number of judges (who may or may not be nested in panels). Variability associated with judges (and possibly panels) contributes error to the resulting cut score. The variability associated with items plays a more complicated role. To the extent that the mean item judgments directly reflect empirical item difficulties, the variability in Angoff judgments over items would not add error to the cut score, but to the extent that the mean item judgments do not correspond to the empirical item difficulties, variability in mean judgments over items would add error to the cut score. In this article, we present two generalizability-theory–based analyses of the proportion of the item variance that contributes to error in the cut score. For one approach, variance components are estimated on the probability (or proportion-correct) scale of the Angoff judgments, and for the other, the judgments are transferred to the theta scale of an item response theory model before estimating the variance components. The two analyses yield somewhat different results but both indicate that it is not appropriate to simply ignore the item variance component in estimating the error variance.  相似文献   

7.
The Angoff (1971) standard setting method requires expert panelists to (a) conceptualize candidates who possess the qualifications of interest (e.g., the minimally qualified) and (b) estimate actual item performance for these candidates. Past and current research (Bejar, 1983; Shepard, 1994) suggests that estimating item performance is difficult for panelists. If panelists cannot perform this task, the validity of the standard based on these estimates is in question. This study tested the ability of 26 classroom teachers to estimate item performance for two groups of their students on a locally developed district-wide science test. Teachers were more accurate in estimating the performance of the total group than of the "borderline group," but in neither case was their accuracy level high. Implications of this finding for the validity of item performance estimates by panelists using the Angoff standard setting method are discussed.  相似文献   

8.
The purpose of the present study was to extend past work with the Angoff method for setting standards by examining judgments at the judge level rather than the panel level. The focus was on investigating the relationship between observed Angoff standard setting judgments and empirical conditional probabilities. This relationship has been used as a measure of internal consistency by previous researchers. Results indicated that judges varied in the degree to which they were able to produce internally consistent ratings; some judges produced ratings that were highly correlated with empirical conditional probabilities and other judges’ ratings had essentially no correlation with the conditional probabilities. The results also showed that weighting procedures applied to individual judgments both increased panel-level internal consistency and produced convergence across panels.  相似文献   

9.
Establishing cut scores using the Angoff method requires panelists to evaluate every item on a test and make a probability judgment. This can be time-consuming when there are large numbers of items on the test. Previous research using resampling studies suggest that it is possible to recommend stable Angoff-based cut score estimates using a content-stratified subset of ?45 items. Recommendations from earlier work were directly applied in this study in two operational standard-setting meetings. Angoff cut scores from two panels of raters were collected at each study, wherein one panel established the cut score based on the entire test, and another comparable panel first used a proportionally stratified subset of 45 items, and subsequently used the entire test in recommending the cut scores. The cut scores recommended for the subset of items were compared to the cut scores recommended based on the entire test for the same panel, and a comparable independent panel. Results from both studies suggest that cut scores recommended using a subset of items are comparable (i.e., within one standard error) to the cut score estimates from the full test.  相似文献   

10.
Historically, Angoff‐based methods were used to establish cut scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In 2005, the National Assessment Governing Board oversaw multiple studies aimed at evaluating the reliability and validity of Bookmark‐based methods via a comparison to Angoff‐based methods. As the Board considered adoption of Bookmark‐based methods, it considered several criteria, including reliability of the cut scores, validity of the cut scores as evidenced by comparability of results to those from Angoff, and procedural validity as evidenced by panelist understanding of the method tasks and instructions and confidence in the results. As a result of their review, a Bookmark‐based method was adopted for NAEP, and has been used since that time. This article goes beyond the Governing Board's initial evaluations to conduct a systematic review of 27 studies in NAEP research conducted over 15 years. This research is used to evaluate Bookmark‐based methods on key criteria originally considered by the Governing Board. Findings suggest that Bookmark‐based methods have comparable reliability, resulting cut scores, and panelist evaluations to Angoff. Given that Bookmark‐based methods are shorter in duration and less costly, Bookmark‐based methods may be preferable to Angoff for NAEP standard setting.  相似文献   

11.
Use of the Rasch IRT Model in Standard Setting: An Item-Mapping Method   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  
This article provides both logical and empirical evidence to justify the use of an item-mapping method for establishing passing scores for multiple-choice licensure and certification examinations. After describing the item-mapping standard-setting process, the rationale and theoretical basis for this method are discussed, and the similarities and differences between the item-mapping and the Bookmark methods are also provided. Empirical evidence supporting use of the item-mapping method is provided by comparing results from four standard-setting studies for diverse licensure and certification examinations. The four cut score studies were conducted using both the item-mapping and the Angoff methods. Rating data from the four standard-setting studies, using each of the two methods, were analyzed using item-by-rater random effects generalizability and dependability studies to examine which method yielded higher inter-judge consistency. Results indicated that the item-mapping method produced higher inter-judge consistency and achieved greater rater agreement than the Angoff method.  相似文献   

12.
There are few empirical investigations of the consequences of using widely recommended data collection procedures in conjunction with a specific standardsetting method such as the Angoff (1971) procedure. Such recommendations include the use of several types of judges, the provision of normative information on examinees' test performance, and the opportunity to discuss and reconsider initial recommendations in an iterative standard-setting procedure. This study of 236 expert judges investigated the effects of using these recommended procedures on (a) average recommended test standards, (b) the variability of recommended test standards, and (c) the reliability of recommended standards for seven subtests of the National Teacher Examinations Communication Skills and General Knowledge Tests. Small, but sometimes statistically significant, changes in mean recommended test standards were observed when judges were allowed to reconsider their initial recommendations following review of normative information and discussion. Means for public school judges changed more than did those for college or university judges. In addition, there was a significant reduction in the within-group variability of standards recommended for several subtests. Methods for estimating the reliability of recommended test standards proposed by Kane and Wilson (1984) were applied, and their hypothesis of positive covariation between empirical item difficulties and mean recommended standards was confirmed. The data collection procedures examined in this study resulted in substantial increases in the reliability of recommended test standards.  相似文献   

13.
《Educational Assessment》2013,18(4):291-304
School districts are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that students are competent in various skills, such as reading and mathematics. Often, demonstrating competence involves comparing performance on assessments to a standard of performance, as embodied in a test score. These scores, called cutscores, separate competent and noncompetent examinees. Because school districts have varied sources of data to inform cutscore decisions, various methods are available for suggesting cutscores. In 2 studies, we examine a selection of methods for arriving at rational and defensible cutscores in school districts. Methods examined are the Angoff (1971) method; the borderline and contrasting groups methods; and 2 new methods, 1 based on course enrollment and 1 based on expert expectations. In Study 1, the Angoff, borderline group, and course enrollment results were consistent, whereas in Study 2, the Angoff and professional judgment methods yielded suggested cutscores that were lower than the borderline group method. Suggestions for further study include the reaction of teachers to the cutscore-setting methods, the effect of different teacher attributes on the results of cutscore-setting methods, and the efficiency of and most effective order for employing the various methods.  相似文献   

14.
Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, only the Jaeger method requires that normative data be provided to the judges when evaluating the items. However, it was of interest to study the effect such information would have upon the standards obtained using the other two methods. Therefore, the design incorporated three sequential review sessions with the level of normative information different for each. A three-factor ANOVA revealed significant main effects for methods and sessions but not for subject area. None of the interactions was significant. The anticipated failure rates, the psychometric characteristics of the ratings, and other factors suggest that the Angoff procedure, as modified during the second session of this study, yields the most defensible standards for the NTE area examinations.  相似文献   

15.
This article presents a comparison of simplified variations on two prevalent methods, Angoff and Bookmark, for setting cut scores on educational assessments. The comparison is presented through an application with a Grade 7 Mathematics Assessment in a midwestem school district. Training and operational methods and procedures for each method are described in detail along with comparative results for the application. An alternative item ordering strategy for the Bookmark method that may increase its usability is also introduced. Although the Angoff method is more widely used, the Bookmark method has some promising features, specifically in educational settings. Teachers are able to focus on the expected performance of the "barely proficient" student without the additional challenge of estimating absolute item dificulty.  相似文献   

16.
This article introduces the Diagnostic Profiles (DP) standard setting method for setting a performance standard on a test developed from a cognitive diagnostic model (CDM), the outcome of which is a profile of mastered and not‐mastered skills or attributes rather than a single test score. In the DP method, the key judgment task for panelists is a decision on whether or not individual cognitive skill profiles meet the performance standard. A randomized experiment was carried out in which secondary mathematics teachers were randomly assigned to either the DP method or the modified Angoff method. The standard setting methods were applied to a test of student readiness to enter high school algebra (Algebra I). While the DP profile judgments were perceived to be more difficult than the Angoff item judgments, there was a high degree of agreement among the panelists for most of the profiles. In order to compare the methods, cut scores were generated from the DP method. The results of the DP group were comparable to the Angoff group, with less cut score variability in the DP group. The DP method shows promise for testing situations in which diagnostic information is needed about examinees and where that information needs to be linked to a performance standard.  相似文献   

17.
Setting performance standards is a judgmental process involving human opinions and values as well as technical and empirical considerations. Although all cut score decisions are by nature somewhat arbitrary, they should not be capricious. Judges selected for standard‐setting panels should have the proper qualifications to make the judgments asked of them; however, even qualified judges vary in expertise and in some cases, such as highly specialized areas or when members of the public are involved, it may be difficult to ensure that each member of a standard‐setting panel has the requisite expertise to make qualified judgments. Given the subjective nature of these types of judgments, and that a large part of the validity argument for an exam lies in the robustness of its passing standard, an examination of the influence of judge proficiency on the judgments is warranted. This study explores the use of the many‐facet Rasch model as a method for adjusting modified Angoff standard‐setting ratings based on judges’ proficiency levels. The results suggest differences in the severity and quality of standard‐setting judgments across levels of judge proficiency, such that judges who answered easy items incorrectly tended to perceive them as easier, but those who answered correctly tended to provide ratings within normal stochastic limits.  相似文献   

18.
Despite being widely used and frequently studied, the Angoff standard setting procedure has received little attention with respect to an integral part of the process: how judges incorporate examinee performance data in the decision‐making process. Without performance data, subject matter experts have considerable difficulty accurately making the required judgments. Providing data introduces the very real possibility that judges will turn their content‐based judgments into norm‐referenced judgments. This article reports on three Angoff standard setting panels for which some items were randomly assigned to have incorrect performance data. Judges were informed that some of the items were accompanied by inaccurate data, but were not told which items they were. The purpose of the manipulation was to assess the extent to which changing the instructions given to the judges would impact the extent to which they relied on the performance data. The modified instructions resulted in the judges making less use of the performance data than judges participating in recent parallel studies. The relative extent of the change judges made did not appear to be substantially influenced by the accuracy of the data.  相似文献   

19.
The Angoff method requires experts to view every item on the test and make a probability judgment. This can be time consuming when there are large numbers of items on the test. In this study, a G-theory framework was used to determine if a subset of items can be used to make generalizable cut-score recommendations. Angoff ratings (i.e., probability judgments) from previously conducted standard setting studies were used first in a re-sampling study, followed by D-studies. For the re-sampling study, proportionally stratified subsets of items were extracted under various sampling and test-length conditions. The mean cut score, variance components, expected standard error (SE) around the mean cut score, and root-mean-squared deviation (RMSD) across 1,000 replications were estimated at each study condition. The SE and the RMSD decreased as the number of items increased, but this reduction tapered off after approximately 45 items. Subsequently, D-studies were performed on the same datasets. The expected SE was computed at various test lengths. Results from both studies are consistent with previous research indicating that between 40–50 items are sufficient to make generalizable cut score recommendations.  相似文献   

20.
Evidence of stable standard setting results over panels or occasions is an important part of the validity argument for an established cut score. Unfortunately, due to the high cost of convening multiple panels of content experts, standards often are based on the recommendation from a single panel of judges. This approach implicitly assumes that the variability across panels will be modest, but little evidence is available to support this assertion. This article examines the stability of Angoff standard setting results across panels. Data were collected for six independent standard setting exercises, with three panels participating in each exercise. The results show that although in some cases the panel effect is negligible, for four of the six data sets the panel facet represented a large portion of the overall error variance. Ignoring the often hidden panel/occasion facet can result in artificially optimistic estimates of the cut score stability. Results based on a single panel should not be viewed as a reasonable estimate of the results that would be found over multiple panels. Instead, the variability seen in a single panel can best be viewed as a lower bound of the expected variability when the exercise is replicated.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号