Item selection strategy for reducing the number of items rated in an Angoff standard setting study

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 193-206

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

^a Measured Progress   (United States)

^b 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: 34147102254     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406288160     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Angoff, W.H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2 nd ed., pp. 508-560). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Ferdous, A., Plake, B. (2005). The use of subsets of test questions in an Angoff standard setting method. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65 (2). 185-201.
3. Hambleton, R.K. (1998). Setting performance standards on achievement tests: Meeting the requirements of Title I. In L. N. Hansche (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, Inc.
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.
10. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 ( 2002 ).