Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

An Evaluation of Pass/Fail Decisions through Norm- and CriterionReferenced Assessments

Pages
9–20
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, the criterion-referenced assessment withNedelsky method might be considered in making pass/fail decisions in educationdue to its criterion validity from the agreement with the semester scores.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The institutions in education use various assessment methods to decideon the proficiency levels of students in a particular construct.
📊
Key Findings & Data:An achievement test with 20 multiple-choiceitems was administered to 107 students in guidance and psychological counselingdepartment to assess their mastery in the course of measurement and evaluation.First, the raw scores were transformed into T-scores for the decisions from normreferenced assessments.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, the criterion-referenced assessment withNedelsky method might be considered in making pass/fail decisions in educationdue to its criterion validity from the agreement with the semester scores.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The institutions in education use various assessment methods to decideon the proficiency levels of students in a particular construct. This studyinvestigated whether the decisions differed based on the type of assessment: normand criterion-referenced assessment. An achievement test with 20 multiple-choiceitems was administered to 107 students in guidance and psychological counselingdepartment to assess their mastery in the course of measurement and evaluation.First, the raw scores were transformed into T-scores for the decisions from normreferenced assessments. Two decisions were made to classify students aspassed/failed comparing each student’s T-score with two common cutoffs ineducation: 50 and 60. Second, two standard-setting methods (i.e., Angoff andNedelsky) were conducted to get two cut scores for the criterion-referencedassessment with the help of experts in measurement and evaluation. Two moredecisions were made on the classification of students into pass/fail group bycomparing the raw scores and the cut scores from two standard-setting methods.The proportions of students in pass/fail categories were found to be statisticallydifferent across each pair of four decisions from norm- and criterion-referencedassessments. Cohen’s Kappa showed that the decisions based on Nedelsky methodindicated a moderate agreement with the pass/fail decisions from the students’semester scores in measurement and evaluation while the other three decisionsshowed a lower agreement. Therefore, the criterion-referenced assessment withNedelsky method might be considered in making pass/fail decisions in educationdue to its criterion validity from the agreement with the semester scores.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çuhadar, İ., Gelbal, S. (2022). An Evaluation of Pass/Fail Decisions through Norm- and CriterionReferenced Assessments. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 9–20. https://ajindex.com/articles/540060

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Aiken, L. R. (2000). Psychological testing and assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Akdeniz University. (2017, September 17). Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ön Lisans ve Lisans EğitimÖğretim ve Sınav Yönetmeliği [Akdeniz University Regulations for Associate and Undergraduate Degree Education and Examinations]. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from http://oidb.akdeniz.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Akdeniz-Üniversitesi-ÖnLisans-ve-Lisans-Eğitim-Öğretim-ve-Sınav-Yönetmeliği-17.09.2017.pdf
  2. Angoff, W. H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Ankara University. (2018, September 4). Ankara Üniversitesi Ön Lisans ve Lisans EğitimÖğretim Yönetmeliği [Ankara University Regulations for Associate and Undergraduate Degree Education and Examinations]. Retrieved May 27, 2020, from http://oidb.ankara.edu.tr/files/2018/04/ÖN-LİSANS-VE-LİSANS-EĞİTİM-ÖĞRETİMYÖNETMELİĞİ.pdf
  3. Arrasmith, D. G. (1986). Investigation of judges’ errors in Angoff and contrasting groups cut of score methods [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test teorisi ve uygulaması [Measurement in Education and Psychology: Classical test theory and applications]. Ankara:
  4. Pegem Yayıncılık. Berk, R. A. (1976). Determination of optimal cutting scores in criterion-referenced measurement. Journal of Experimental Education, 45(2), 4-9.
  5. Calmorin, L. P., & Calmorin, M. A. (2007). Research methods and thesis writing. Manila: Rex Book Store. Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reconsidering standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 93-106.
  6. Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clark-Carter, D. (2005). Quantitative psychological research: a student handbook. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  7. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
  8. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Ohio: Cengage Learning. Ebel, R. L. (1972). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Erciyes University. (2015, December 27). Erciyes Üniversitesi Ön Lisans ve Lisans EğitimÖğretim Yönetmeliği [Erciyes University Regulations for Associate and Undergraduate Degree Educati