Combining the Livingston and Zieky (1982) correction to a cut score for an examination using correction-for-guessing scoring is reasonable if minimally competent candidates (MCCs) omit only those items for which they cannot eliminate any of the options. Otherwise, the corrected cut-score will be overly harsh, resulting in additional errors in classifications. In this study, omit behavior on a 48-item Mathematics Achievement Test of an empirically established group of MCCs was compared to the predictions of five expert judges. The results suggest that this group of examinees tended to respond to the items with an omit pattern similar to that predicted by the judges.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorudike (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington. DC: American Council on Education, pp. 514-515.
2.
Baggaley, A. W. (1969). Mathematics for introductory statistics. A programmed review. New York: Wiley.
3.
Berk, R. A. (1985). Minimum competency testing: Status and potential. In B. S. Plake &J. C. Witt (Eds.), Future directions of testing, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Livingston, S. A. & Zieky, M. J. (1982). Passing scores. A manual for setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
Nedelsky (1954). Absolute grading standards for objective tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14, 3-19.
6.
Shepard, L. (1983). Setting performance standards. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), A guide to criterion-referenced test construction. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
