Interpreting the Results of Three Different Standard-Setting Procedures |
| |
| Authors: | Donald Ross Green C Scott Trimble Daniel M Lewis |
| |
| Institution: | Donald Ross Green is Chief Research Psychologist at CTB/McGraw-Hill, 20 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA 93940;e-mail: . His areas of specialization include test construction and use, ethnic and gender bias in test construction, and standard setting.;C. Scott Trimble is Associate Commissioner for the Office of Assessment and Accountability, 18th Floor–Capital Plaza Tower, 500 Mero Street, Frankfort, KY 40601;e-mail: . His areas of specialization are large-scale assessment, school accountability, and assessment of special education students.;Daniel M. Lewis is Manager of Strategic Research Programs at CTB/McGraw-Hill, 20 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA 93940;e-mail: . His areas of specialization include standard setting and inclusive testing issues. |
| |
| Abstract: | Different standard-setting procedures usually produce different cut points even if each has a rational basis. In 2000, three standard-setting procedures were implemented to set cut scores in each of the 18 grade/content areas comprising Kentucky's state assessment system: the Contrasting Groups, Bookmark, and Jaeger-Mills procedures. Subsequently, participants from each of the three procedures worked together in each grade/content area to synthesize the results. These synthesis participants considered the results of, and examined the materials and information provided by, each of the three separate procedures. In this article the synthesis processes are described and discussed. |
| |
| Keywords: | Bookmark contrasting groups cut scores Jaeger-Mills performance levels standard setting |
|
|
