Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Jacob Cohen (1968)
Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.Psychological Bulletin, 70
W. H. Angoff (1971)
Educational measurement
R. Poulin (1997)
SPECIES RICHNESS OF PARASITE ASSEMBLAGES: Evolution and PatternsAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 28
K. Nylund, T. Asparouhov, B. Muthén (2007)
Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation StudyStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14
J. Bergan, Clement Stone (1985)
Latent class models for knowledge domainsPsychological Bulletin, 98
G. Cizek (1993)
Reconsidering Standards and CriteriaJournal of Educational Measurement, 30
J. R. Bergan (1983)
Review of research in education
G. J. Cizek, M. B. Bunch (2007)
Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests
G. Schwarz (1978)
Estimating the Dimension of a ModelAnnals of Statistics, 6
L. Nedelsky (1954)
Absolute Grading Standards for Objective TestsEducational and Psychological Measurement, 14
W. Finch, K. Bronk (2011)
Conducting Confirmatory Latent Class Analysis Using MplusStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18
Αγγελική Χωρίκη (2016)
Latent Class Analysis
(2014)
Standards for educational and psychological testing
M. Croon (1990)
Latent class analysis with ordered latent classeBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43
V. Ramaswamy, W. DeSarbo, D. Reibstein, W. Robinson (1993)
An Empirical Pooling Approach for Estimating Marketing Mix Elasticities with PIMS DataMarketing Science, 12
G. Lear (2003)
Standard setting.Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987), 18 2
James Henson, S. Reise, Kevin Kim (2007)
Detecting Mixtures From Structural Model Differences Using Latent Variable Mixture Modeling: A Comparison of Relative Model Fit StatisticsStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14
B. Green, R. Bock, L. Humphreys, R. Linn, M. Reckase (1984)
TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TESTSJournal of Educational Measurement, 21
B. Plake, R. Hambleton, R. Jaeger (1997)
A New Standard-Setting Method for Performance Assessments: The Dominant Profile Judgment Method and Some Field-Test ResultsEducational and Psychological Measurement, 57
G. Celeux, G. Soromenho (1996)
An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model, 13
G. Cizek (2012)
Setting performance standards : foundations, methods, and innovations
H. Akaike (1987)
Factor analysis and AIC, 52
J. Landis, G. Koch (1977)
The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics, 33 1
F. Baker, Paul Lazerfeld, Neil Henry (1968)
Readings in Mathematical Social Sciences.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63
Richard Brown (2007)
Using Latent Class Analysis to Set Academic Performance StandardsEducational Assessment, 12
Samuel Livingston, Michael Zieky (1983)
A Comparative Study of Standard-Setting MethodsApplied Measurement in Education, 1983
Validity of performance standards is a key element for the defensibility of standard setting results, and validating performance standards requires collecting multiple pieces of evidence at every step during the standard setting process. This study employs a statistical procedure, latent class analysis, to set performance standards and compares latent class analysis results with previously established performance standards via the modified‐Angoff method for cross‐validation. The context of the study is an operational large‐scale science assessment administered in one of the southern states in the United States. Results show that the number of classes that emerged in the latent class analysis concurs with the number of existing performance levels. In addition, there is a substantial level of agreement between latent class analysis results and modified‐Angoff method in terms of classifying students into the same performance levels. Overall, the findings establish evidence for the validity of the performance standards identified via the modified‐Angoff method. Practical implications of the study findings are discussed.
Journal of Educational Measurement – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 2022
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.