Setting passing scores on passage-based tests: A comparison of traditional and single-passage bookmark methods

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 405-426

  Skaggs, Gary ^a   Hein, Serge F ^a   Awuor, Risper ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41449112184     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340701580660     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 508-600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Beretvas, S. N. (2004). Comparison of bookmark difficulty locations under different item response models. Applied Psychological. Measurement, 28(1), 25-47.
3. Buckendahl, C. W., Smith, R. W., Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (2002). A comparison of Angoff and bookmark standard setting methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 59(3), 253-263.
4. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2001). State Student Assessment Programs Annual Survey. Data Volume II. Washington, DC: Author.
5. Fry, E. B. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension, to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242-252.
6. Goodwin, L. D. (1999). Relations between observed item difficulty levels and Angoff minimum passing levels for a group of borderline examinees. Applied Measurement In Education, 12(1), 13-28.
7. Green, D. R., Trimble, C. S., & Lewis, D. R. (2003). Interpreting the results of three different standard-setting procedures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(1), 22-32.
8. Huynh, H. (1998). On score locations for binary and partial credit items and their applications to item mapping and criterion-referenced interpretation. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(1), 35-56.
9. Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1998). Participants' ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of the assumptions of the Angoff standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(1), 69-81.
10. Jaeger, R., & Mills, C. (2001). An integrated judgment procedure for setting standards on complex, large-scale assessments. In C. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Kolstad, A. (1996). The response probability convention embedded in reporting prose literacy levels from the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey. Paper presented at the Annual. Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
12. Lewis, D. M., & Green, D. R. (June 1997). The validity of performance level descriptors. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
13. Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (June 1996). Standard setting: A. bookmark approach. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
14. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. J. (1989). BILOG3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models (1st ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
15. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. In C. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. National Academies of Sciences (2005). Measuring literacy: Performance levels for adults. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
17. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 200.1, 20 U.S.C. §6311 et seq. (2002).
18. Shepard, L. A. (1995). Implications for standard setting of the National Academy of Education evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement levels. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments, Volume II (pp. 143-160). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education. Statistics.
19. Shepard, L., Glaser, R., Linn, R. L., & Bornstedt, G. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement. A report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the evaluation of the NAEP trial state assessment: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement levels. Stanford University, Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
20. Skaggs, G. (2007). Bookmark locations and item response model selection in the presence of local item dependence. Journal of Applied Measurement 8(1), 65-83.
21. Skaggs, G., & Tessema, A. (2001, April). Item disordinality with the bookmark standard setting procedure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
22. Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2004). K-10 Grade Level. Expectations: A New Level of Specificity. Olympia, WA: Author.
23. Williams, N. J., & Schulz, E. M. (2005). An. investigation of response probability (RP) values used in standard setting. Unpublished manuscript. Author.
24. Yin, P., & Schulz, E. M. (2005). A comparison of cutscores and cutscore variability from Angoff-based and bookmark-based procedures in standard setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
25. Ziecky, M. J., & Livingston, S. A. (1977). Manual for setting standards on the basic skills assessment tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.