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 panelists to do accurately; however, the validity of these performance standards rests on the ability of panelists to conceptualize the skills and abilities of the MCC accurately and to make accurate performance predictions. This study investigated the utility of a strategy to aid in the conceptualization of the MCC. Panelists were asked to envision the typical candidate and the MCC, and then to make item performance predictions for the typical student first and then the MCC. Results with 24 panelists predicting performance of students on a high school mathematics examination showed that the strategy resulted in significantly lower performance standards than did the traditional approach. Validity data were used to evaluate the accuracy of judgments resulting from the experimental and traditional approaches. More research is needed to clarify the utility of a concept focusing strategy on the judgmental performance standards. (Contains six references.) (Author/SLD)