A conceptual framework for a psychometric theory for standard setting with examples of its use for evaluating the functioning of two standard setting methods

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 4-18

  Reckase, Mark D ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bookmark method; Modified Angoff method; Psychometric theory; Standard setting

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747312585     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00052.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ad Hoc Committee on Confirming Test Results (2002, March). Using the National Assessment of Educational, Progress to confirm state test results. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
2. Angoff, W.H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
3. Brandon, P. R. (2004). Conclusions about frequently studied modified Angoff standard-setting topics.Applied Measurement in Education, 77(1), 59-88.
4. Braswell, J. S., Dion, G. S., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2005). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2003 (NCES 2005-451). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Personal communication reported in M. D. Reckase (2000). The evolution of the NAEP achievement levels setting process: A summary of the research and development efforts conducted by ACT. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
6. Buckendahl, C. W., Smith, R. W., Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (2001, April). A comparison of Angoff and bookmark standard setting methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
7. Cizek, G. J. (2001). Setting performance standards. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Hambleton, R. K. (2001). Setting performance standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards (pp. 89-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Jaeger, R. M. (1989). Certification of student competence. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
10. 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. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Livingston, S. A., & Zieky, M. J. (1982). Passing scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. 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(2), 87-97.
15. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Educational Research.
16. Reckase, M. D. (2001). Innovative methods for helping standard-setting participants to perform their task: The role of feedback regarding consistency, accuracy, and impact. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 159-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Schulz, M. (2004). Unpublished presentation to the COSDAM Committee of the National Assessment Governing Board.