Cargando…

Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting

BACKGROUND: Standard setting is one of the most contentious topics in educational measurement. Commonly-used methods all have well reported limitations. To date, there is not conclusive evidence suggesting which standard setting method yields the highest validity. METHODS: The method described and p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shulruf, Boaz, Coombes, Lee, Damodaran, Arvin, Freeman, Adrian, Jones, Philip, Lieberman, Steve, Poole, Phillippa, Rhee, Joel, Wilkinson, Tim, Harris, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5991461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29879954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1238-7
_version_ 1783329834141745152
author Shulruf, Boaz
Coombes, Lee
Damodaran, Arvin
Freeman, Adrian
Jones, Philip
Lieberman, Steve
Poole, Phillippa
Rhee, Joel
Wilkinson, Tim
Harris, Peter
author_facet Shulruf, Boaz
Coombes, Lee
Damodaran, Arvin
Freeman, Adrian
Jones, Philip
Lieberman, Steve
Poole, Phillippa
Rhee, Joel
Wilkinson, Tim
Harris, Peter
author_sort Shulruf, Boaz
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Standard setting is one of the most contentious topics in educational measurement. Commonly-used methods all have well reported limitations. To date, there is not conclusive evidence suggesting which standard setting method yields the highest validity. METHODS: The method described and piloted in this study asked expert judges to estimate the scores on a real MCQ examination that they consider indicated a clear pass, clear fail, and pass mark for the examination as a whole. The mean and SD of the judges responses to these estimates, Z scores and confidence intervals were used to derive the cut-score and the confidence in it. RESULTS: In this example the new method’s cut-score was higher than the judges’ estimate. The method also yielded estimates of statistical error which determine the range of the acceptable cut-score and the estimated level of confidence one may have in the accuracy of that cut-score. CONCLUSIONS: This new standard-setting method offers some advances, and possibly advantages, in that the decisions being asked of judges are based on firmer constructs, and it takes into account variation among judges.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5991461
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59914612018-06-21 Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting Shulruf, Boaz Coombes, Lee Damodaran, Arvin Freeman, Adrian Jones, Philip Lieberman, Steve Poole, Phillippa Rhee, Joel Wilkinson, Tim Harris, Peter BMC Med Educ Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Standard setting is one of the most contentious topics in educational measurement. Commonly-used methods all have well reported limitations. To date, there is not conclusive evidence suggesting which standard setting method yields the highest validity. METHODS: The method described and piloted in this study asked expert judges to estimate the scores on a real MCQ examination that they consider indicated a clear pass, clear fail, and pass mark for the examination as a whole. The mean and SD of the judges responses to these estimates, Z scores and confidence intervals were used to derive the cut-score and the confidence in it. RESULTS: In this example the new method’s cut-score was higher than the judges’ estimate. The method also yielded estimates of statistical error which determine the range of the acceptable cut-score and the estimated level of confidence one may have in the accuracy of that cut-score. CONCLUSIONS: This new standard-setting method offers some advances, and possibly advantages, in that the decisions being asked of judges are based on firmer constructs, and it takes into account variation among judges. BioMed Central 2018-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5991461/ /pubmed/29879954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1238-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Shulruf, Boaz
Coombes, Lee
Damodaran, Arvin
Freeman, Adrian
Jones, Philip
Lieberman, Steve
Poole, Phillippa
Rhee, Joel
Wilkinson, Tim
Harris, Peter
Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
title Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
title_full Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
title_fullStr Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
title_full_unstemmed Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
title_short Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
title_sort cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5991461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29879954
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1238-7
work_keys_str_mv AT shulrufboaz cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT coombeslee cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT damodaranarvin cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT freemanadrian cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT jonesphilip cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT liebermansteve cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT poolephillippa cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT rheejoel cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT wilkinsontim cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting
AT harrispeter cutscoresrevisitedfeasibilityofanewmethodforgroupstandardsetting