Standard Setting as a Participatory Process: Implications for Validation of Standards-Based Accountability Programs

In standards-based accountability programs, test scores are interpreted with reference to cut scores that establish categories like "proficient" or "below basic." The meaning of these cut scores is set forth in their associated "performance standards." Validity arguments for such interpretations require both a criterion-referenced score scale and a legitimate exercise of authority by those who set the standards. Stakeholder participation in a rational and coherent deliberative process is necessary to assure that these conditions are satisfied. This article sets forth a framework for the required validity argument and suggests possible ways to enable such participation. A new standard-setting method, the "briefing book" method, is suggested for possible study.