Criteria for standard setting from the sponsor's perspective

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 61-81

  Schafer, William D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17444387097     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1801_4     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Camilli, G., Cizek, G. J., & Lugg, C. A. (2001). Psychometric theory and the validation of performance standards: History and future perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 445-475). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reconsidering standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 93-106.
3. Glass, G. V. (1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 237-261.
4. Glass, G. V. (2003). Cut-scores: Where do they come from? In Boston, C., L. M. Rudner, L. J. Walker, & L. Crouch (Eds.), What reporters need to know about test scores (pp. 93-109). Washington, DC: Education Writers Asociation.
5. Haertel, E. H. (2002). Standard setting as a participatory process: Implications for validation of standards-based accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 16-22.
6. Hambleton, R. K. (2001). Setting performance standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 89-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Kane, M. T. (2001). So much remains the same: Conception and status of validation in setting standards. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 53-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Lewis, D. M. & Green, D. R. (1997, June). The validity of performance level descriptors. Paper presented at the 1997 Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Colorado Springs, CO.
9. Lissitz, R. W. & Huynh, H. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(10). Retrieved February 5, 2004 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v= 8&n=10
10. Loomis, S. C. & Bourque, M. L. (2001). From tradition to innovation: Standard setting on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards; Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 175-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Mehrens, W. A., & Cizek, G. J. (2001). Standard setting and the public good: Benefits accrued and anticipated. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 477-485). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002). Retrieved on August 2, 2004 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
13. Parkes, J. & Stevens, J. (2003). Legal issues in school accountability systems. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 141-158.
14. Phillips, S. E. (2001). Legal issues in standard setting for k-12 programs. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 411-426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.