Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reilly, R. R.
Right arrow Articles by Israelski, E. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods For Setting Minimum Passing Scores

Richard R. Reilly

Department of Management, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken NJ 07030, U.S.A.

Donald L. Zink

American Telephone & Telegraph Company

Edmond W. Israelski

American Telephone & Telegraph Company

Several studies have compared different judgmental methods of setting passing scores by estimating item difficulties for the minimally competent examinee. Usually, a direct method of estimating item difficulties has been compared with an indirect method suggested by Nedelsky (1954). Nedelsky's method has usually resulted in a substantially lower cutoff score than that arrived at with a direct method. Two studies were car ried out for the purpose of comparing a direct method of setting passing scores with an indirect method that allowed judges to estimate the probability of the mini mally competent examinee eliminating each incorrect alternative. In Study 1 a sample of 52 first-level su pervisors used both methods to estimate passing scores on a content-oriented selection test for building main tenance specialists. In Study 2 a sample of 62 first- level supervisors used both methods to estimate pass ing scores on an entry level auto mechanics test. Re sults of both studies showed that the variance compo nent for method was relatively small and that for raters was relatively large. Reliability estimates of judgments and correlations between judged difficulties and empirical difficulties showed the Angoff (1971) approach to be slightly superior. Results showed no particular advantage to using an indirect approach for estimating minimal competence.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 8, No. 4, 421-429 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168400800406
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?