Abstract
BackgroundFixed mark grade boundaries for non-linear assessment scales fail to account for variations in assessment difficulty. Where assessment difficulty varies more than ability of successive cohorts or the quality of the teaching, anchoring grade boundaries to median cohort performance should provide an effective method for setting standards.MethodsThis study investigated the use of a modified Hofstee (MH) method for setting unsatisfactory/satisfactory and satisfactory/excellent grade boundaries for multiple choice question-style assessments, adjusted using the cohort median to obviate the effect of subjective judgements and provision of grade quotas.ResultsOutcomes for the MH method were compared with formula scoring/correction for guessing (FS/CFG) for 11 assessments, indicating that there were no significant differences between MH and FS/CFG in either the effective unsatisfactory/satisfactory grade boundary or the proportion of unsatisfactory graded candidates (p > 0.05). However the boundary for excellent performance was significantly higher for MH (p < 0.01), and the proportion of candidates returned as excellent was significantly lower (p < 0.01). MH also generated performance profiles and pass marks that were not significantly different from those given by the Ebel method of criterion-referenced standard setting.ConclusionsThis supports MH as an objective model for calculating variable grade boundaries, adjusted for test difficulty. Furthermore, it easily creates boundaries for unsatisfactory/satisfactory and satisfactory/excellent performance that are protected against grade inflation. It could be implemented as a stand-alone method of standard setting, or as part of the post-examination analysis of results for assessments for which pre-examination criterion-referenced standard setting is employed.
Highlights
Fixed mark grade boundaries for non-linear assessment scales fail to account for variations in assessment difficulty
modified Hofstee (MH) returns a proportion of candidates deemed to show unsatisfactory performance similar to that given by formula scoring/correction for guessing (FS/CFG), when applying a maximum MH Boundary for Satisfactory Performance (BSP) of 60 %
Whereas others have reported that the conventional Hofstee method generates only small changes in BSP for relatively large changes in the boundaries for fail rates and pass marks [11], we have demonstrated that the MH method detailed in the present report generates much larger changes in actual BSP when the position of the upper limit of the BSP is varied relative to the median performance of the cohort [13]; this is intuitively consistent with the standard setting process
Summary
Fixed mark grade boundaries for non-linear assessment scales fail to account for variations in assessment difficulty. It is clear that variations in test difficulty have a marked effect on pass/fail rates for different cohorts [2], and predetermined fixed standards are increasingly difficult to justify and defend. There is no single gold standard for setting grade boundaries for multiple choice question (MCQ)-style assessments, and criterion-based approaches (such as Angoff or Ebel) rely on panels of judges reviewing each question item [3]. These criterion-based methods are resource intensive and susceptible to a high degree of inter-reviewer variability [4].
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have