Selection of Judges for Standard‐Setting
Educational Measurement Issues and PracticePublished 1 June 1991
Richard M. Jaeger
Citations70
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score0.80
SNIP1.30
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
Abstract
Who should make judgments about test standards? Who is an expert? How many judges should be used in a standard‐setting study? What is the relationship between the number of judges and the standard error of the test?
Keywords
Social Sciences
Psychology Press eBooksThe Nature of Expertise
2,180 Citations2014Michelene T.H., Robert Glaser +1 more
This chapter discusses Expertise on the Bench: Modeling Magistrates' Judicial Decision-Making and Expertise in a Complex Skill: Diagnosing X-Ray Pictures, and examines the relationship between Comprehension and Reasoning in Medical Expertise.
American AnthropologistCulture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy
1,679 Citations1986A. Kimball Romney, Susan C. Weller +1 more
Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology
338 Citations1979Albert K. Kurtz, Samuel T. Mayo
Information Pooling and Group Decision Making
304 Citations1986Bernard Grofman
Applied Psychological MeasurementA Comparison of the Nedelsky and Angoff Cutting Score Procedures Using Generalizability Theory
96 Citations1980Robert L. Brennan, Robert E. Lockwood
Educational Evaluation and Policy AnalysisAn Iterative Structured Judgment Process for Establishing Standards on Competency Tests: Theory and Application
81 Citations1982Richard M. Jaeger
Journal of Educational MeasurementA LATENT TRAIT METHOD FOR DETERMINING INTRAJUDGE INCONSISTENCY IN THE ANGOFF AND NEDELSKY TECHNIQUES OF STANDARD SETTING
73 Citations1982Wim J. van der Linden
The present paper addresses this second, negatively loaded type of arbitrariness and focuses on the Angoff (1971) and Nedelsky (1954) techniques; these are commonly classified as techniques based on judgement of test content.
Journal of Educational MeasurementA COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS
67 Citations1984Lawrence H. Cross, James C. Impara +2 more
Journal of Educational MeasurementDifferential Use of Item Information by Judges Using Angoff and Nedeisky Procedures
41 Citations1988Robert L. Smith, Jeffrey K. Smith
Applied Measurement in EducationUse and Effect of Caution Indices in Detecting Aberrant Patterns of Standard-Setting Judgments
13 Citations1988Richard M. Jaeger