Comparing Cut Scores from the Angoff Method and Two Variations of the Hofstee and Beuk Methods

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2020-03-03 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2020.1732385
Adam E. Wyse
{"title":"Comparing Cut Scores from the Angoff Method and Two Variations of the Hofstee and Beuk Methods","authors":"Adam E. Wyse","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2020.1732385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article compares cut scores from two variations of the Hofstee and Beuk methods, which determine cut scores by resolving inconsistencies in panelists’ judgments about cut scores and pass rates, with the Angoff method. The first variation uses responses to the Hofstee and Beuk percentage correct and pass rate questions to calculate cut scores. The second variation uses Angoff ratings to determine percentage correct data in combination with responses to pass rate questions. Analysis of data from 15 standard settings suggested that the Hofstee and Beuk methods yielded similar cut scores, and that cut scores were about 2% lower when using Angoff ratings. The two approaches also differed in the weight assigned to cut score judgments in the Beuk method and in the occurrence of undefined cut scores in the Hofstee method. Findings also indicated that the Hofstee and Beuk methods often produced higher cut scores and lower pass rates than the Angoff method. It is suggested that attention needs to be paid to the strategy used to estimate Hofstee and Beuk cut scores.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"33 1","pages":"159 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732385","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732385","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article compares cut scores from two variations of the Hofstee and Beuk methods, which determine cut scores by resolving inconsistencies in panelists’ judgments about cut scores and pass rates, with the Angoff method. The first variation uses responses to the Hofstee and Beuk percentage correct and pass rate questions to calculate cut scores. The second variation uses Angoff ratings to determine percentage correct data in combination with responses to pass rate questions. Analysis of data from 15 standard settings suggested that the Hofstee and Beuk methods yielded similar cut scores, and that cut scores were about 2% lower when using Angoff ratings. The two approaches also differed in the weight assigned to cut score judgments in the Beuk method and in the occurrence of undefined cut scores in the Hofstee method. Findings also indicated that the Hofstee and Beuk methods often produced higher cut scores and lower pass rates than the Angoff method. It is suggested that attention needs to be paid to the strategy used to estimate Hofstee and Beuk cut scores.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较Angoff法和Hofstee法和Beuk法的两种变体的切割分数
摘要本文比较了Hofstee和Beuk方法的两种变体的分数线,这两种方法通过解决小组成员对分数线和通过率的判断不一致来确定分数线。第一种变体使用对Hofstee和Beuk正确率和通过率问题的回答来计算分数。第二种变体使用Angoff评分来确定正确数据的百分比,并结合对通过率问题的回答。对来自15个标准设置的数据的分析表明,Hofstee和Beuk方法产生了相似的分数,并且在使用Angoff评分时,分数降低了约2%。这两种方法在Beuk方法中分配给切割分数判断的权重和Hofstee方法中未定义切割分数的出现方面也有所不同。研究结果还表明,Hofstee和Beuk方法通常比Angoff方法产生更高的切入得分和更低的通过率。建议需要注意用于估计Hofstee和Beuk得分的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
期刊最新文献
New Tests of Rater Drift in Trend Scoring Automated Scoring of Short-Answer Questions: A Progress Report Item and Test Characteristic Curves of Rank-2PL Models for Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires Impact of violating unidimensionality on Rasch calibration for mixed-format tests Can Adaptive Testing Improve Test-Taking Experience? A Case Study on Educational Survey Assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1