Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halpin, G.
Right arrow Articles by Halpin, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Procedures for Setting Minimum Competency Standards

Gerald Halpin

Auburn University

Glennelle Halpin

Auburn University

Pass/fail decisions for all two-method combinations of 10 standard-setting procedures were analyzed. The most reliable or equivalent methods were the practitioners—borderline group, Ebel—contrasting groups, and 33rd percentile—Angoff approaches. The least reliable or equivalent were the chance/ideal mean—masters group and Nedelsky—masters group approaches. The most valid of the 10 methods, as evidenced by correlations with an external criterion, were the practitioner and borderline group approaches while the least valid were the nonmasters, Nedelsky, and chance/ideal mean methods. Results of a more detailed study of the reliability and validity of the item-judgment methods are also reported.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47, No. 4, 977-983 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164487474013
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
G. M. Hurtz and M. A. Auerbach
A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Modifications to the Angoff Method on Cutoff Scores and Judgment Consensus
Educational and Psychological Measurement, August 1, 2003; 63(4): 584 - 601.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
M. Kane
Validating the Performance Standards Associated With Passing Scores
Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1994; 64(3): 425 - 461.
[Abstract] [PDF]