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
| Probability | 2 |
| Standard Setting (Scoring) | 2 |
| Test Construction | 2 |
| Case Studies | 1 |
| Concept Formation | 1 |
| Educational Assessment | 1 |
| Guessing (Tests) | 1 |
| High School Students | 1 |
| High Schools | 1 |
| Judges | 1 |
| Mathematics Tests | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Practical Assessment,… | 1 |
Author
| Foley, Brett P. | 1 |
| Giraud, Gerald | 1 |
| Hertzog, Melody | 1 |
| Impara, James C. | 1 |
| Plake, Barbara S. | 1 |
| Spies, Robert | 1 |
Publication Type
| Reports - Research | 2 |
| Journal Articles | 1 |
| Speeches/Meeting Papers | 1 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Foley, Brett P. – Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2016
There is always a chance that examinees will answer multiple choice (MC) items correctly by guessing. Design choices in some modern exams have created situations where guessing at random through the full exam--rather than only for a subset of items where the examinee does not know the answer--can be an effective strategy to pass the exam. This…
Descriptors: Guessing (Tests), Multiple Choice Tests, Case Studies, Test Construction
Plake, Barbara S.; Impara, James C.; Hertzog, Melody; Giraud, Gerald; Spies, Robert – 1997
Judgmental standard setting approaches rely on the perceptions of experts about examinee performance on a test. Traditional standard setting methods ask panelists to predict the probability that a randomly selected, hypothetical minimally competent candidate (MCC) will correctly answer test questions. Item performance predictions are difficult for…
Descriptors: Concept Formation, High School Students, High Schools, Judges

Peer reviewed
