Data were collectedthrough math achievement test consisting ofconstructed-response items, scoring rubrics, expert opinion form for Extended Angoff method and student classification form for ContrastingGroups method
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study aimed to compare the cut scoresobtained by the Extended Angoff and ContrastingGroups methods for an achievement test consistingof constructed-response items.Research Methods: This study was based on surveyresearch design.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the collection of data, the studygroup of the research consisted of eight mathematicsteachers for the Extended Angoff method, 75 eighthgrade students, and a mathematics teacher for theContrasting Groups method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Data were collectedthrough math achievement test consisting ofconstructed-response items, scoring rubrics, expert opinion form for Extended Angoff method and student classification form for ContrastingGroups method
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the cut scoresobtained by the Extended Angoff and ContrastingGroups methods for an achievement test consistingof constructed-response items.Research Methods: This study was based on surveyresearch design. In the collection of data, the studygroup of the research consisted of eight mathematicsteachers for the Extended Angoff method, 75 eighthgrade students, and a mathematics teacher for theContrasting Groups method. Data were collectedthrough math achievement test consisting ofconstructed-response items, scoring rubrics, expert opinion form for Extended Angoff method and student classification form for ContrastingGroups method
🔖
Cite This Article
DOGAN, C. D., OZARKAN, H. B. (2022). A Comparison of Two Standard-Setting Methods for Tests Consisting of Constructed-Response Items. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 90, 121–138. https://ajindex.com/articles/507120
Akhun, I. (1982). Iki yuzde arasindaki farkin manidarliginin test edilmesi [Testing the significance of the difference between two percentages]. Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(1), 240-259. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000000817 Baykul, Y. (1992). Egitim sisteminde degerlendirme [Evaluation in education system]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education (7), 85-94.
Baykul, Y. (2000). Egitimde ve psikolojide olcme: klasik test teorisi ve uygulamasi [Measuring in education and psychology: classical test theory and practice.]. Ankara:
OSYM Yayinlari. Brandon, P. R. (2002). Two versions of the contrasting-groups standard-setting method: A review. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(3), 167-181. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2002.12069061 Buyukozturk, S., Kilic Cakmak, E., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel arastirma yontemleri [Scientific research methods] (14 b.). Ankara:
Pegem Akademi. Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reconsidering Standards and Criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 93-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb01068.x Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standart Setting: A Guide to Establishing and Evaluating Performance Standards on Tests. Sage Publications. Cetin, S., & Gelbal, S. (2010). Farkli standart belirleme yontemlerinin gecme puanlari uzerine etkisi [Impact of standard setting methodologies over passing scores]. Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 79-95. doi: 10.1501/Egifak_0000001191 Demir, O., & Kose, İ. A. (2014).
Angoff, Nedelsky ve Ebel standart belirleme yontemleri ile belirlenen kesme puanlarinin karsilastirilmasi [A comparison of cutting points determined by Angoff, Nedelsky and Ebel standard setting methods]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(2), 14-27. doi: 10.17860/efd.18119 Gundeger, C., & Dogan, N. (2014).
Angoff, Yes/No ve Ebel standart belirleme yontemlerinin karsilastirilmasi [A comparison of Angoff, Yes/No and Ebel standard setting methods]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(1), 53-60. doi: 10.21031/epod.47091 Hambleton, R. K., & Plake, B. S. (1995). Using an extended Angoff procedure to set standards on complex performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 41-55. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame0801_4 Hambleton, R. K., Jaeger, R. M., Plake, B. S., & Mills, C. (2000). Setting performance standards on complex educational assessments. Applied psychological measurement, 24