Publication Date
| In 2026 | 0 |
| Since 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2022 (last 5 years) | 0 |
| Since 2017 (last 10 years) | 0 |
| Since 2007 (last 20 years) | 1 |
Descriptor
| Comparative Analysis | 2 |
| Cutting Scores | 2 |
| Grade 3 | 2 |
| Reading Tests | 2 |
| Benchmarking | 1 |
| Clinical Diagnosis | 1 |
| Cognitive Processes | 1 |
| Difficulty Level | 1 |
| Elementary School Teachers | 1 |
| Experienced Teachers | 1 |
| Grade 1 | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Reports - Research | 2 |
Education Level
| Elementary Education | 2 |
| Grade 3 | 2 |
| Grade 1 | 1 |
| Grade 2 | 1 |
| Primary Education | 1 |
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
| Minnesota Comprehensive… | 1 |
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewed
Direct linkSkaggs, Gary; Hein, Serge F. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2011
Judgmental standard setting methods have been criticized for the cognitive complexity of the judgment task that panelists are asked to complete. This study compared two methods designed to reduce this complexity: the yes/no method and the single-passage bookmark method. Two mock standard setting panel meetings were convened, one for each method,…
Descriptors: Standard Setting (Scoring), Methods, Cutting Scores, Experienced Teachers
Hintze, John M.; Silberglitt, Benjamin – School Psychology Review, 2005
The purpose of this study was to compare different statistical and methodological approaches to standard setting and determining cut scores using R-CBM and performance on high-stakes tests. One thousand seven hundred and sixty-six students were followed longitudinally from first through third grades using R-CBM benchmark assessment. In addition,…
Descriptors: Predictive Validity, High Stakes Tests, Standard Setting, Clinical Diagnosis
