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 437 毫秒
1.
The purpose of this study was to determine if a linear procedure, typically applied to an entire examination when equating scores and reseating judges' standards, could be used with individual item data gathered through Angoffs standard-setting method (1971). Specifically, experts estimates of borderline group performance on one form of a test were transformed to be on the same scale as experts' estimates of borderline group performance on another form of the test. The transformations were based on examinees' responses to the items and on judges' estimates of borderline group performance. The transformed values were compared to the actual estimates provided by a group of judges. The equated and reseated values were reasonably close to those actually assigned by the experts. Bias in the estimates was also relatively small. In general, the reseating procedure was more accurate than the equating procedure, especially when the examinee sample size for equating was small.  相似文献   

2.
In test-centered standard-setting methods, borderline performance can be represented by many different profiles of strengths and weaknesses. As a result, asking panelists to estimate item or test performance for a hypothetical group study of borderline examinees, or a typical borderline examinee, may be an extremely difficult task and one that can lead to questionable results in setting cut scores. In this study, data collected from a previous standard-setting study are used to deduce panelists’ conceptions of profiles of borderline performance. These profiles are then used to predict cut scores on a test of algebra readiness. The results indicate that these profiles can predict a very wide range of cut scores both within and between panelists. Modifications are proposed to existing training procedures for test-centered methods that can account for the variation in borderline profiles.  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.
Evidence of the internal consistency of standard-setting judgments is a critical part of the validity argument for tests used to make classification decisions. The bookmark standard-setting procedure is a popular approach to establishing performance standards, but there is relatively little research that reflects on the internal consistency of the resulting judgments. This article presents the results of an experiment in which content experts were randomly assigned to one of two response probability conditions: .67 and .80. If the standard-setting judgments collected with the bookmark procedure are internally consistent, both conditions should produce highly similar cut scores. The results showed substantially different cut scores for the two conditions; this calls into question whether content experts can produce the type of internally consistent judgments that are required using the bookmark procedure.  相似文献   

5.
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   

6.
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   

7.
An important consideration in standard setting is recruiting a group of panelists with different experiences and backgrounds to serve on the standard-setting panel. This study uses data from 14 different Angoff standard settings from a variety of medical imaging credentialing programs to examine whether people with different professional roles and test development experiences tended to recommend higher or lower cut scores or were more or less accurate in their standard-setting judgments. Results suggested that there were not any statistically significant differences for different types of panelists in terms of the cut scores they recommended or the accuracy of their judgments. Discussion of what these results may mean for panelist selection and recruitment is provided.  相似文献   

8.
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   

9.
A Comparison of Three Variations on a Standard-Setting Method   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  
The purpose of this study was to determine whether two variations on the typical Angoff group standard-setting process would produce sufficiently consistent results to recommend their use. Judgments obtained from a group of experts during a meeting were compared with judgments gathered from the same group before and after the meeting. The results indicate that differences between passing scores obtained with the three variations are relatively small, but those gathered before the meeting were less consistent than ratings gathered during and after the meeting. These results imply that judgments gathered after an initial traditional group-process session can provide an efficient alternative mechanism for setting cutting scores using the Angoff method.
This research was supported by The American Board of Internal Medicine, but does not necessarily reflect its opinions or policies.  相似文献   

10.
This module describes some common standard-setting procedures used to derive performance levels for achievement tests in education, licensure, and certification. Upon completing the module, readers will be able to: describe what standard setting is; understand why standard setting is necessary; recognize some of the purposes of standard setting; calculate cut scores using various methods; and identify elements to be considered when evaluating standard-setting procedures. A self-test and annotated bibliography are provided at the end of the module. Teaching aids to accompany the module are available through NCME.  相似文献   

11.
Some writers in the measurement literature have been skeptical of the meaningfulness of achievement standards and described the standard-setting process as blatantly arbitrary. We argue that standard setting is more appropriately conceived of as a measurement process similar to student assessment. The construct being measured is the panelists' representation of student performance at the threshold of an achievement level. In the first section of this paper, we argue that standard setting is an example of stimulus-centered measurement. In the second section, we elaborate on this idea by comparing some popular standard-setting methods to the stimulus-centered scaling methods known as psychophysical scaling. In the third section, we use the lens of standard setting as a measurement process to take a fresh look at the two criticisms of standard setting: the role of judgment and the variability of results. In the fourth section, we offer a vision of standard-setting research and practice as grounded in the theory and practice of educational measurement .  相似文献   

12.
Standard-setting procedures are a key component within many large-scale educational assessment systems. They are consensual approaches in which committees of experts set cut-scores on continuous proficiency scales, which facilitate communication of proficiency distributions of students to a wide variety of stakeholders. This communicative function makes standard-setting studies a key gateway for validity concerns at the intersection of evidentiary and consequential aspects of score interpretations. This short review paper describes the conceptual and empirical basis of validity arguments for standard-setting procedures in light of recent research on validity theory. It specifically demonstrates how procedural and internal evidence for the validity of standard-setting procedures can be collected to form part of the consequential basis of validity evidence for test use.  相似文献   

13.
《Educational Assessment》2013,18(2):129-153
States are increasingly using test scores as part of the requirements for high school graduation or certification. In these circumstances, a battery of tests or, with writing, analytic traits are considered that usually cover different aspects of the state's content standards. Because pass or fail decisions are made affecting students' futures, the validity of standard-setting procedures and strategies is a major concern. Policymakers and legislators must decide which of these 2 standard-setting strategies to use for making pass or fail decisions for students seeking certification or for meeting a high school graduation requirement. The compensatory strategy focuses on total performance, summing scores across all tests in the battery. The conjunctive strategy requires passing performance for each test in the battery. This article reviews and evaluates compensatory and conjunctive standard-setting strategies. The rationales for each type are presented and discussed. Results from a study comparing the compensatory and conjunctive strategies for a state high school certification writing test provide insight into the problem of choosing either strategy. This article concludes with a set of recommendations for those who must decide which type of standard-setting strategy to use.  相似文献   

14.
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   

15.
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   

16.
This article explores the challenge of setting performance standards in a non-Western context. The study is centered on standard-setting practice in the national learning assessments of Trinidad and Tobago. Quantitative and qualitative data from annual evaluations between 2005 and 2009 were compiled, analyzed, and deconstructed. In the mixed methods research design, data were integrated under an evaluation framework for validating performance standards. The quantitative data included panelists’ judgments across standard-setting rounds and methods. The qualitative data included both retrospective comments from open-ended surveys and real-time data from reflective diaries. Findings for procedural and internal validity were mixed, but the evidence for external validity suggested that the final outcomes were reasonable and defensible. Nevertheless, the real-time qualitative data from the reflective diaries highlighted several cognitive challenges experienced by panelists that may have impinged on procedural and internal validity. Additional unique hindrances were lack of resources and wide variation in achievement scores. Ensuring a sustainable system of performance standards requires attention to these deficits.  相似文献   

17.
This module describes standard setting for achievement measures used i n education, licensure, and certification. On completing the module, readers will be able to: describe what standard setting is, why it is necessary, what some of the purposes of standard setting are, and what professional guidelines apply to the design and conduct of a standard-setting procedure; differentiate among different models of standard setting; calculate a cutting score using various methods; identify appropriate sources of validity evidence and threats to the validity of a standard-setting procedure; and list some elements to be considered when evaluating the success of a standard-setting procedure. A self-test and annotated bibliography are provided at the end of the module. Teaching aids to accompany the module are available through NCME.  相似文献   

18.
Standard setting methods, like the Bookmark procedure, are used to assist education experts in formulating performance standards. Small group discussion is meant to help these experts in setting more reliable and valid cutoff scores. This study is an analysis of 15 small group discussions during two standards setting trajectories and their effect on the cutoff scores on four performance levels for comprehensive reading and mathematics. Discussion decreased the variability of the cutoff scores among the expert panelists, but the direction of the adaptations varied among groups. Furthermore, also the duration and the content of the audio-taped discussions differed among groups. There was no relationship between the increase in agreement among the panelists and the duration of their discussions or their use of arguments concerning learning content. It was concluded that an increased consensus among panelists alone does not provide enough information on the reliability and validity of cutoff scores. Additional measures aimed at the content of group discussions have appeared to be necessary, since the use of content arguments in these discussions is not guaranteed.  相似文献   

19.
Who should make judgments about test standards? Who is an expert? How many judges should be used in a standard-setting study? What is the relationship between the number of judges and the standard error of the test?  相似文献   

20.
Although the Angoff procedure is among the most widely used standard setting procedures for tests comprising multiple‐choice items, research has shown that subject matter experts have considerable difficulty accurately making the required judgments in the absence of examinee performance data. Some authors have viewed the need to provide performance data as a fatal flaw for the procedure; others have considered it appropriate for experts to integrate performance data into their judgments but have been concerned that experts may rely too heavily on the data. There have, however, been relatively few studies examining how experts use the data. This article reports on two studies that examine how experts modify their judgments after reviewing data. In both studies, data for some items were accurate and data for other items had been manipulated. Judges in both studies substantially modified their judgments whether the data were accurate or not.  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