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 46 毫秒
1.
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   

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.
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   

4.
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   

5.
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   

6.
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   

7.
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   

8.
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   

9.
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   

10.
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   

11.
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   

12.
This research evaluated the impact of a common modification to Angoff standard‐setting exercises: the provision of examinee performance data. Data from 18 independent standard‐setting panels across three different medical licensing examinations were examined to investigate whether and how the provision of performance information impacted judgments and the resulting cut scores. Results varied by panel but in general indicated that both the variability among the panelists and the resulting cut scores were affected by the data. After the review of performance data, panelist variability generally decreased. In addition, for all panels and examinations pre‐ and post‐data cut scores were significantly different. Investigation of the practical significance of the findings indicated that nontrivial fail rate changes were associated with the cut score changes for a majority of standard‐setting exercises. This study is the first to provide a large‐scale, systematic evaluation of the impact of a common standard setting practice, and the results can provide practitioners with insight into how the practice influences panelist variability and resulting cut scores.  相似文献   

13.
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   

14.
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   

15.
Essential for the validity of the judgments in a standard-setting study is that they follow the implicit task assumptions. In the Angoff method, judgments are assumed to be inversely related to the difficulty of the items; contrasting-groups judgments are assumed to be positively related to the ability of the students. In the present study, judgments from both procedures were modeled with a random-effects probit regression model. The Angoff judgments showed a weaker link with the position of the items on the latent scale than the contrasting-groups judgments with the position of the students. Hence, in the specific context of the study, the contrasting-groups judgments were more aligned with the underlying assumptions of the method than the Angoff judgments .  相似文献   

16.
In judgmental standard setting procedures (e.g., the Angoff procedure), expert raters establish minimum pass levels (MPLs) for test items, and these MPLs are then combined to generate a passing score for the test. As suggested by Van der Linden (1982), item response theory (IRT) models may be useful in analyzing the results of judgmental standard setting studies. This paper examines three issues relevant to the use of lRT models in analyzing the results of such studies. First, a statistic for examining the fit of MPLs, based on judges' ratings, to an IRT model is suggested. Second, three methods for setting the passing score on a test based on item MPLs are analyzed; these analyses, based on theoretical models rather than empirical comparisons among the three methods, suggest that the traditional approach (i.e., setting the passing score on the test equal to the sum of the item MPLs) does not provide the best results. Third, a simple procedure, based on generalizability theory, for examining the sources of error in estimates of the passing score is discussed.  相似文献   

17.
Since 1971 there have been a number of studies in which a cut score has been set using a method proposed by Angoff (1971). In this method, each member of a panel of judges estimates for each test question the proportion correct for a specific target group of examinees. Prior and contemporary research suggests that this is a difficult task for judges. Angoff also proposed that judges simply indicate whether or not an examinee from the target group will be able to answer each question correctly (the yes/no method). We report on the results of two studies that compare a yes/no estimation with a proportion correct estimation. The two studies demonstrate that both methods produce essentially equal cut scores and that judges find the yes/no method more comfortable to use than the estimated proportion correct method.  相似文献   

18.
Administering tests under time constraints may result in poorly estimated item parameters, particularly for items at the end of the test (Douglas, Kim, Habing, & Gao, 1998; Oshima, 1994). Bolt, Cohen, and Wollack (2002) developed an item response theory mixture model to identify a latent group of examinees for whom a test is overly speeded, and found that item parameter estimates for end-of-test items in the nonspeeded group were similar to estimates for those same items when administered earlier in the test. In this study, we used the Bolt et al. (2002) method to study the effect of removing speeded examinees on the stability of a score scale over an II-year period. Results indicated that using only the nonspeeded examinees for equating and estimating item parameters provided a more unidimensional scale, smaller effects of item parameter drift (including fewer drifting items), and less scale drift (i.e., bias) and variability (i.e., root mean squared errors) when compared to the total group of examinees.  相似文献   

19.
In many of the methods currently proposed for standard setting, all experts are asked to judge all items, and the standard is taken as the mean of their judgments. When resources are limited, gathering the judgments of all experts in a single group can become impractical. Multiple matrix sampling (MMS) provides an alternative. This paper applies MMS to a variation on Angoff's method (1971) of standard setting. A pool of 36 experts and 190 items were divided randomly into 5 groups, and estimates of borderline examinee performance were acquired. Results indicated some variability in the cutting scores produced by the individual groups, but the variance components were reasonably well estimated. The standard error of the cutting score was very small, and the width of the 90% confidence interval around it was only 1.3 items. The reliability of the final cutting score was.98  相似文献   

20.
《教育实用测度》2013,26(4):331-345
In order to obtain objective measurement for examinations that are graded by judges, an extension of the Rasch model designed to analyze examinations with more than two facets (items/examinees) is used. This extended Rasch model calibrates the elements of each facet of the examination (i.e., examinee performances, items, and judges) on a common log-linear scale. A network for assigning judges to examinations is used to link all facets. Real examination data from the "clinical assessment" part of a certification examination are used to illustrate the application. A range of item difficulties and judge severities were found. Comparison of examinee raw scores with objective linear measures corrected for variations in judge severity shows that judge severity can have a substantial impact on a raw score. Correcting for judge severity improves the fairness of examinee measures and of the subsequent pass-fail decisions because the uncorrected raw scores favor examinee performances graded by lenient judges.  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