Considerable research about standard setting has revolved around a U.S.-centric policy context. That is, over the past decade, conclusions about thought processes and the interaction of education policy and panelists' judgments have been based on assumptions of comparable policy settings. However, whether these assumptions generalize to other…

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,…

An analysis was made of the cognitive processes that support the judgments made in standard setting activities. These processes were conceived as having two components: forming the domain needed to pass the test and identifying the criterion level of performance to pass the test. In fact, these processes are interactive, and were separated for the…

A new standard setting approach is introduced, called the cognitive components approach. Like the Angoff method, the cognitive components method generates minimum pass levels (MPLs) for each item. In both approaches, the item MPLs are summed for each judge, then averaged across judges to yield the standard. In the cognitive components approach,…

The cognitive components standard setting method, recently introduced by D. McGinty and J. Neel (1996), asks judges to specify minimum levels of performance not for the test items, but for smaller portions of items, the component skills and concepts required to answer each item correctly. Items are decomposed into these components before judges…