A comparison of four frequently used standard setting methods for deriving cut-off scores with respect to the expected performance of minimally competent students, is presented in this paper. Ten Kansas Competency Based Tests, in reading and mathematics, were administered across five grade levels in a state-wide minimal competency testing program. School districts were randomly assigned the Angoff, Ebel or Nedelsky standard setting method and 50 districts were assigned the Contrasting Groups Method. Descriptions of the types of judgments required and the procedures used for deriving a standard are given for each method. Methods of analysis are documented and are followed by results of their discussion. Statistical evidence is provided in the eight tables appended. Table 8 provides a framework within which to view the pattern of results for the ten tests. Data indicate that performance score standards are consistently ranked, and that discrepancies were substantial between methods but internal consistency was high. It is concluded that, since standard setting methods differ and competency level is a continuous variable, methods are bound to produce different results. The superiority of a single method is neither supported by existing literature nor data. (Author/AEF)