Abstract
Schulz (2006) provides a different perspective on standard setting than that provided in Reckase (2006). He also suggests a modification to the bookmark procedure and some alternative models for errors in panelists' judgments than those provided by Reckase. This article provides a response to some of the points made by Schulz and reports some additional analyses of the bookmark and modified Angoff method using the suggestions made by Schulz. The results support considering a range of items when placing a bookmark using that method and they show that the regression of panelists' probability of correct response estimates toward .5 can have serious effects on the recovery of intended cut scores. The complexity of the standard setting processes, and the need for detailed descriptions of standard setting processes are also discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
