東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Standard setting methods for complex...

Pitoniak, Mary Jean.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Standard setting methods for complex licensure examinations.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Standard setting methods for complex licensure examinations./
Author:	Pitoniak, Mary Jean.
Description:	290 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-01, Section: B, page: 0460.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International64-01B.
Subject:	Psychology, Psychometrics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3078711
ISBN:	0493997253

Standard setting methods for complex licensure examinations.
Pitoniak, Mary Jean.

Standard setting methods for complex licensure examinations. - 290 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-01, Section: B, page: 0460.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003.

As the content and format of educational assessments evolve, the need for valid and workable standard setting methods grows as well. Although there are numerous standard setting methods available for multiple-choice items, there is a much smaller pool of methods from which to choose when constructed-response items or performance assessments are considered.

ISBN: 0493997253Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017742
Psychology, Psychometrics.

Standard setting methods for complex licensure examinations.
LDR:03330nmm 2200325 4500 001 1855537
005 20040610112948.5
008 130614s2003 eng d
020 $a 0493997253
035 $a (UnM)AAI3078711
035 $a AAI3078711
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Pitoniak, Mary Jean. $3 1943345
245 1 0 $a Standard setting methods for complex licensure examinations.
300 $a 290 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 64-01, Section: B, page: 0460.
500 $a Directors: Ronald D. Hambleton; James M. Royer.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2003.
520 $a As the content and format of educational assessments evolve, the need for valid and workable standard setting methods grows as well. Although there are numerous standard setting methods available for multiple-choice items, there is a much smaller pool of methods from which to choose when constructed-response items or performance assessments are considered.
520 $a In this study, four standard setting methods were evaluated. Two of the methods were used with the simulation component of a licensing examination, and two were used with the multiple-choice component. The two methods used with the simulations were the Work Classification method and the Analytic method. With the multiple-choice items, the Item Cluster method and Direct Consensus method were employed.
520 $a The Item Cluster and Direct Consensus methods had each been the subject of research on two previous occasions, and the aims of the current study were to make modifications suggested by earlier findings and to seek replication of trends found earlier. The Work Classification and Analytic methods, while bearing some similarity to existing methods, are seen as new approaches specially configured to reflect the features of the simulations under consideration in the study.
520 $a The results for each method were evaluated in terms of three sources of validity evidence—procedural, internal, and external—and the methods for each item type were contrasted to each other to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses. For the methods used with the simulations, the Analytic method has an advantage procedurally due to time factors, but panelists felt more positively about the Work Classification method. Internally, interrater reliability for the Analytic method was lower. Externally, the consistency of cut scores between methods was good in two of the three simulations; the larger difference on the third simulation may be explainable by other factors. For the methods used with the multiple-choice items, this study's findings support most of those found in earlier research. Procedurally, the Direct Consensus method is more efficient. Internally, there was less consistency across panels with the Direct Consensus method. Externally, the Direct Consensus method produced higher cut scores. Suggestions for future research for all four methods are given.
590 $a School code: 0118.
650 4 $a Psychology, Psychometrics. $3 1017742
650 4 $a Education, Tests and Measurements. $3 1017589
690 $a 0632
690 $a 0288
710 2 0 $a University of Massachusetts Amherst. $3 1019433
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 64-01B.
790 1 0 $a Hambleton, Ronald D., $e advisor
790 1 0 $a Royer, James M., $e advisor
790 $a 0118
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2003
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3078711