What are panelists thinking when they participate in standard-setting studies?

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 233-256

  Skorupski, William P ^a   Hambleton, Ronald K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844497812     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1803_3     Document Type: Article

References (14)

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. Camburn, E., Correnti, R., & Taylor, J. (2000, April). Using qualitative techniques to assess the validity of teachers' responses to survey items. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
3. Cavanaugh, J., & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11-28.
4. Cizek, G. (Ed.). (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Farr, R. Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 209-226.
6. Giraud, G. T. (1999). A qualitative inquiry into the setting of cut scores on school district assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
7. Hambleton, R. K., Jaeger, R. M., Plake, B. S., & Mills, C. N. (2000). Setting performance standards on complex educational assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 355-366.
8. Lane, S. (1991). Implications of cognitive psychology for measurement and testing: Assessing students' knowledge structures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 31-33, 36.
9. Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (1996, June). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. Symposium presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
10. Nisbett; R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 237-259.
11. Nitko, A. J., & Lane, S. (1990, August). Solving problems is not enough: Assessing and diagnosing the ways in which students organize statistical concepts. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Dunedin, New Zealand.
12. Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. (1997). Standard-setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 353-366.
13. Wilson, J. (2001, December). Methodological difficulties of assessing metacognition: A new approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Australia.
14. Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2002, April). Monitoring mathematical metacognition. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.