Abstract
School districts are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that students are competent in various skills, such as reading and mathematics. Often, demonstrating competence involves comparing performance on assessments to a standard of performance, as embodied in a test score. These scores, called cutscores, separate competent and noncompetent examinees. Because school districts have varied sources of data to inform cutscore decisions, various methods are available for suggesting cutscores. In 2 studies, we examine a selection of methods for arriving at rational and defensible cutscores in school districts. Methods examined are the Angoff (1971) method; the borderline and contrasting groups methods; and 2 new methods, 1 based on course enrollment and 1 based on expert expectations. In Study 1, the Angoff, borderline group, and course enrollment results were consistent, whereas in Study 2, the Angoff and professional judgment methods yielded suggested cutscores that were lower than the borderline group method. Suggestions for further study include the reaction of teachers to the cutscore-setting methods, the effect of different teacher attributes on the results of cutscore-setting methods, and the efficiency of and most effective order for employing the various methods.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.