The use of subsets of test questions in an Angoff standard-setting method

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 185-201

  Ferdous, Abdullah A ^a   Plake, Barbara S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Angoff method; Minimum passing score; Standard setting; Stratified item selection; Subsets of test items

Indexed keywords

EID: 17044423021     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164404264852     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 508-60), Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Chang, L. (1999). Judgmental item analysis of the Nedelsky and Angoffstandard setting methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 151-165.
3. Hambleton, R. K. (1998). Setting performance standards on achievement tests: Meeting the requirements of Title I. In L. N. Mansche (Ed.), Handbook for the development of performance standards: Meeting the requirements of Title I (pp. 97-114). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
4. Harvey, A. L., & Way, W. D. (1999, April). A comparison of Web-based standard setting and monitored standard setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
5. National Assessment Governing Board. (1994). Setting achievement levels on the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Geography and in US History and the 1996 National Assessment of Education Progress in Science (final version). Washington, DC: Author.
6. Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (1997, April). Consistency of Angoff-based predictions as a function of item difficulty. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
7. Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (2001). Ability of panelists to estimate item performance for a target group of candidates: An issue in judgmental standard setting. Educational Assessment, 7, 87-97.
8. Reckase, M. D. (2001). The evaluation of the NAEP achievement level setting process: A summary of the research and developmental efforts. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
9. Sireci, S. G., Patelis, T., Rizavi, S., Dillingham, A. M., & Rodriguez, G. (2000, April). Setting standards on a computerized-adaptive placement examination. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.