Use of the Rasch IRT Model in Standard Setting: An Item-mapping Method

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 231-253

  Wang, Ning ^a  

^a WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346331551     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01106.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 508-600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Bejar, I. I. (1983). Subject matter experts' assessment of item statistics. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 303-310.
3. Berk, R.A. (1996). Standard setting: the next generation. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(3), 215-235.
4. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
5. Brennan, R. L., & Lockwood, R. E. (1980). A comparison of the Nedelsky and Angoff cutting score procedures using generalizability theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 219-240.
6. Chang, L. (1999). Judgmental item analysis of the Nedelsky and Angoff standard-setting methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(2), 151-166.
7. Cizek, G. J. (1996). Standard-setting guidelines. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(1), 13-21.
8. Crick, J. E., & Brennan, R. L. (1983). A GENeralized analysis Of VAriance system [GENOVA]. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
9. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York: John Wiley.
10. Goodwin, L. D. (1999). Relations between observed item difficulty levels and Angoff minimum passing levels for a group of borderline candidates. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(1), 13-28.
11. Grosse, M. E., & Wright, B. D. (1986). Setting, evaluating, and maintaining certification standards with the Rasch model. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 9, 267-285.
12. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
13. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297-313.
14. Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1997). Standard setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(4), 353-366.
15. Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1998). Teachers' ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of the assumptions in the Angoff standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(1), 69-81.
16. Kane, M. (1994). Validating the performance standards associated with passing scores. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 425-461.
17. Kane, M. (1995). Examinee-centered vs. task-centered standard setting. Proceedings of Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments, Washington, DC.
18. Kane, M. T. (1998). Criterion bias in examinee-centered standard setting: Some thought experiments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 23-30.
19. Klein, L. W. (1984, April). Practical considerations in the design of standard setting studies in health occupations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
20. Lewis, D. M., Green, D. R., Mitzel, H. C., Baum, K., & Patz, R. J. (1998, April). The bookmark standard setting procedure: Methodology and recent implementations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
21. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1995). BIGSTEPS computer program. Chicago: MESA Press.
22. McKinley, D. W., Newman, L. S., & Wiser, R. F. (1996, April). Using the Rasch model in the standard-setting process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New York, NY.
23. Mills, C. N. (1995). Establishing passing standards. In J. C. Impara (Ed.), Licensure testing: Purpose, procedures, and practices (pp. 219-252), Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
24. Mills, C. N., & Melican, G. J. (1988). Estimating and adjusting cutoff scores: Future of selected methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 261-275.
25. Mills, C. N., Melican, G. J., & Ahluwalia, N. T. (1991). Defining minimal competence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 7-10.
26. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark method: Psychological perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. National Academy of Education (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement. Stanford, CA: Author.
28. National Research Council (1999). Setting reasonable and useful performance standards. In J. W. Pellegrino, L. R. Jones, & K. J. Mitchell (Eds.), Grading the nation's report card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress (pp. 162-184). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Norcini, J. J., & Shea, J. A. (1997). The credibility and comparability of standards. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(1), 39-59.
30. Norcini, J. J., Shea, J. A., & Kanya, D. T. (1988). The effect of various factors on standard setting. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 57-65.
31. Plake, B. S. (1998). Setting performance standards for professional licensure and certification. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(1), 65-80.
32. Reid, J. B. (1991), Training judges to generate standard-setting data. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 11-14.
33. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
34. Shepard, L. A. (1995). Implications for standard setting of the national academy of education evaluation of the national assessment of educational progress achievement levels. Proceedings of Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments (pp. 143-160). Washington, DC: The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
35. Simon, H. A. (1989). Models of thought (Vol. II). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36. Smith, R. M. (1991). IPARM: Item and person analysis with the Rasch model. Chicago: MESA Press.
37. Stone, M. H. (1998). Rating scale categories: Dichotomy, double dichotomy, and the number two. Popular Measurement, 1(1), 61-65.
38. Swanson, D. B., Dillon, G. F., & Ross, L. E. (1990). Setting content-based standards for national board exams: Initial research for the Comprehensive Part I Examinations. Academic Medicine, 65, 17-18.
39. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
40. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
41. Zwick, R., Senturk, D., Wang, J., & Loomis, S. C. (2001). An investigation of alternative methods for item mapping in the national assessment of educational progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(2), 15-25.