The Ebel, Nedelsky, and Angoff approaches to standard setting were utilized to determine cut-off scores on the Missouri College English Test for admission to teacher education at a large university by three groups that, themselves, were at different levels with regard to the competencies being measured. Even though significantly different cut-off scores resulted with the use of the different methods, more nearly comparable standards were achieved through a modification in the expected success proportions used with the Ebel method than through employment of the Nedelsky or Angoff procedures. Further, similar standards were set by the groups combining all three methods. Implications for validity are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrew, B. J. and Hecht, J. T.A preliminary investigation of two procedures for setting examination standards. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1976, 36, 35-50.
2.
Angoff, W. H.Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1971.
3.
Archambault, F. X. , Behuniak, P., and Gable, R. K.A comparison of the Angoff and Nedelsky procedures for setting standards on reading and mathematics proficiency examinations. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Los Angeles, April 1981.
4.
Behuniak, P. , Gable, R. K., and Archambault, F.A comparsion of dichotomized and trichotomized proficiency test scores. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Los Angeles, April 1981.
5.
Buck, L. S.Guide to the setting of appropriate cutting scores for written tests: A summary of the concerns and procedures. Washington, D. C.: Personnel Research and Development Center, United States Civil Service Commission, 1977.
6.
Callis, R. and Johnson, W.Missouri College English Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1965.
7.
Colton, D. A. and Hecht, J. T.A preliminary report on a study of three techniques for setting minimum passing scores. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Los Angeles, April 1981.
8.
Ebel, R. L.Estimation of the reliability of ratings . Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 407-424.
9.
Ebel, R. L.Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
10.
Glass, G. V.Standards and criterion . Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 237-261.
11.
Hambleton, R. K. , Powell, S., and Eignor, D. R.Issues and methods for standard setting. In Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research, Report No. 70. Amherst, MA.: School of Education, University of Massachusetts, 1979.
12.
Koffler, S. L.A comparison of approaches for setting proficient standards . Journal of Educational Measurement, 1980, 17, 167-178.
13.
Linn, R. L.Demands, cautions, and suggestions for setting standards . Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 301-308.
14.
Livingston, S. A. and Zieky, M. J.Manual for setting standards on the basic skills assessment tests. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1978.
15.
Marascuilo, L. A. and Levin, J. R.Appropriate post hoc comparisons for interaction and nested hypotheses in analysis of variance designs: The elimination of Type IV errors. American Educational Research Journal, 1970, 7, 397-421.
16.
Meskauskas, J. A.Evaluation models for criterion-referenced testing: Views regarding mastery and standard setting . Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 133-158.
17.
Nedelsky, L.Absolute grading standards for objective test . EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1954, 14, 3-19.
18.
Poggio, J. P. , Glasnapp, D. R., and Eros, D. S.An empirical investigation of Angoff, Ebel, and Nedelsky standard setting methods. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.
19.
Poggio, J. P. , Glasnapp, D. R., and Eros, D. S.An evaluation of contrasting-groups methods for setting standards. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March 1982.
20.
Popham, W. J.Setting performance standards. Los Angeles, CA.: Instructional Objectives Exchange, 1978.
21.
Scheffd, H.The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley, 1959.
22.
Shepard, L.Technical issues in minimum competency testing. In D. C. Berlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 8). Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1980.
23.
Skakun, E. N. and Kling, S.Comparability of methods for setting standards. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1980, 17, 229-235.
