Methods of setting standards for complex performance-based assessments

Hans Vos

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    This study investigates some procedures for setting performance standards. Both standard-setting methods for unidimensional, dichotomously scored tests (e.g., multiple-choice credentialing tests) and multidimensional, polytomously scored complex performance-based assessments are considered. Two procedures are distinguished for unidimensional tests: judgemental and empirical-judgemental methods. Nedelsky|s and Angoff|s methods are addressed in the first type of procedure, whereas the borderline group and contrasting-groups methods are dealt with in the second type of procedure. Three recently proposed procedures are reviewed for multidimensional complex assessments: the judgemental capturing policy, the extended Angoff procedure, and the dominant profile method.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)111-120
    Number of pages9
    JournalInternational journal of continuing engineering education and life-long learning
    Volume14
    Issue number1/2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2004

    Keywords

    • Complex performance assessments
    • Standard-setting methods
    • Nedelsky's method
    • Angoff's method
    • Borderline-group method
    • Contrasting-groups method
    • Judgemental capturing policy
    • Extended Angoff method
    • Dominant profile method

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Methods of setting standards for complex performance-based assessments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this