During the development of large-scale curricular achievement tests, recruited panels of independent subject-matter experts use systematic judgmental methods--often collectively labeled "alignment" methods--to rate the correspondence between a given test's items and the objective statements in a particular curricular standards document. High disagreement among the expert panelists may indicate problems with training, feedback, or other steps of the alignment procedure. Existing procedural recommendations for alignment reviews have been derived largely from single-panel research studies; support for their use during operational large-scale test development may be limited. Synthesizing data from more than 1,000 alignment reviews of state achievement tests, this study identifies features of test-standards alignment review procedures that impact agreement about test item content. The researchers then use their meta-regression results to propose some practical suggestions for alignment review implementation.