The Angoff standard setting method relies on content experts to review exam items and make judgments about the performance of the minimally proficient examinee. Unfortunately, at times content experts may have gaps in their understanding of specific exam content. These gaps are particularly likely to occur when the content domain is broad and/or…

This article introduces the Diagnostic Profiles (DP) standard setting method for setting a performance standard on a test developed from a cognitive diagnostic model (CDM), the outcome of which is a profile of mastered and not-mastered skills or attributes rather than a single test score. In the DP method, the key judgment task for panelists is a…

"Classification" and "ranking" are tools for comparing colleges and universities, albeit for different purposes. Although "classification" focuses on identifying similarities rather than ordering institutions, it is closely intertwined with "ranking", whether directly through its content, structure, and…

Compared the Nedelsky (L. Nedelsky, 1954) and Angoff (W. Angoff, 1971) standard-setting methods in three studies involving 80 graduate students as judges. Nedelsky cutscores were significantly lower than Angoff cutscores. Suggests that combining the strong features of both methods would make a better standard-setting procedure. (SLD)

The comparability of Angoff-based item ratings on a general education test battery made by judges from within-content and across-content domains was studied. Results with 26 college faculty judges indicate that, at least for some tests, item ratings might be essentially equivalent regardless of judge's content specialty. (SLD)