Adopting Cut Scores: Post-Standard-Setting Panel Considerations for Decision Makers

Autor/inn/en	Geisinger, Kurt F.; McCormick, Carina M.
Titel	Adopting Cut Scores: Post-Standard-Setting Panel Considerations for Decision Makers
Quelle	In: Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29 (2010) 1, S.38-44 (7 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0731-1745
DOI	10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00168.x
Schlagwörter	Standard Setting (Scoring); Measurement; Cutting Scores; Educational Policy; Validity; Grades (Scholastic); Standards + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Bewertungsskala; Messverfahren; Politics of education; Bildungspolitik; Gültigkeit; Notenspiegel; Standard
Abstract	Standard-setting studies utilizing procedures such as the Bookmark or Angoff methods are just one component of the complete standard-setting process. Decision makers ultimately must determine what they believe to be the most appropriate standard or cut score to use, employing the input of the standard-setting panelists as one piece of information among multiple sources. However, guidance for weighing the various components is limited. The current article describes considerations about data that are used to make standard-setting decisions, as previously outlined by Geisinger (1991). The ten points provided by Geisinger have been expanded as they relate to shifts in educational policy and practice in educational measurement. They have been amended with six new components as well. The new considerations addressed are smoothing across grades, raising standards in progression (over grades or over time), opportunity to learn or instructional validity, input from other groups, equating or linking to previous standards, and organizational vision and goals. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10