Skip to main content

The Data-Driven Direct Consensus (3DC) Procedure: A New Approach to Standard Setting

  • 898 Accesses

Part of the Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment book series (MEMA)

Abstract

Various procedures for establishing performance standards have been proposed in the literature. Among the best-known examples are the Angoff procedure, the Bookmark procedure and the Direct Consensus procedure. These procedures have their strengths and weaknesses. Some procedures make it possible to establish performance standards relatively efficiently and quickly, but lack empirical rigor. Other procedures do include empirical data, but are time consuming and not very intuitive. In the present study, the strengths of the aforementioned standard setting procedures were brought together in a new one: the Data-Driven Direct Consensus (3DC) procedure. The 3DC procedure divides the complete test into a number of clusters and uses (unlike Direct Consensus) empirical data and an item response model to relate the scores of the clusters to the scores of the complete test. The relationships between the clusters and the complete test are presented to the subject-area experts on a specially designed assessment form. Subject-area experts are asked to use the assessment form to indicate the score that students would be expected to achieve in each cluster if they were exactly on the borderline of proficiency. Because of the design of the assessment form, the assessment is easily allowed to be based on both content information and empirical data. This is an important difference with Direct Consensus as empirical information is less explicit within this procedure.

Keywords

  • Angoff
  • Bookmark
  • Direct consensus
  • Empirical data
  • Standard setting

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50856-6_15
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-50856-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 15.1
Fig. 15.2

References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and American Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angoff, W.H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.), pp. 508–600. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (1986). A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56, 137–172.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, J. C., & Jaeger, R. M. (1990). Influence of type of judge, normative information, and discussion on standards recommended for the National Teacher Examinations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 145–163.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3–17). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J., & Bunch, M. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default_en.asp. Retrieved Nov 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of test development. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feskens, R., Keuning, J., Van Til, A., & Verheyen, R. (2014). Performance standards for the CEFR in Dutch secondary education: An international standard setting study. Arnhem: Cito.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, R. H. (1970). A note on estimating the reliability of categorical data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 71–76.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, L. D. (1999). Relations between observed item difficulty levels and Angoff minimum passing levels for a group of borderline candidates. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(1), 13–28.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics, 27, 857–871.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., & Plake, B. S. (1995). Using an extended Angoff procedure to set standards on complex performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 41–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., & Pitoniak, M. (2006). Setting performance standards. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 433–470). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., Jaeger, R. M., Plake, B. S., & Mills, C. N. (2000). Handbook for setting standards on performance assessments. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (1997). Standard setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 353–366.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, R. M. (1978). A proposal for setting a standard on the North Carolina High School competency test. Paper presented at the 1978 spring meeting of the North Carolina Association for Research in Education, Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, R. (1989). Certification of student competence. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 485–511). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaftandjieva, F. (2004). Methods for setting cut scores in criterion-referenced achievement tests. A comparative analysis of six recent methods with an application to tests of reading in EFL. Arnhem: Cito.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (1998). Choosing between examinee-centered and test-centered standard-setting methods. Educational Assessment, 5, 129–145.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Karatonis, A., & Sireci, S. (2006). The bookmark standard-setting method: A literature review. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 4–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., Green, D. R. (1996). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. In D. R. Green (Chair), IRT-based standard setting procedures utilizing behavioural anchoring. Symposium conducted at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., Green, D. R., & Patz, R. J. (1999). The bookmark standard setting procedure. Monterey: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitoniak, M. J., Hambleton, R. K., Sireci, S. G. (2002). Advances in Standard Setting for Professional Licensure Examinations. Paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckase, M. D. (2006). A conceptual framework for a psychometric theory for standard setting with examples of its use for evaluating the functioning of two standard setting methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(2), 4–18.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G., Hambleton, R. K., Huff, K. L., & Jodoin, M. G. (2000). Setting and validating standards on Microsoft certified professional examinations, Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research Report No. 395. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G., Hambleton, R. K., & Pitoniak, M. J. (2004). Setting passing scores on licensure exams using direct consensus. CLEAR Exam Review, 15(1), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhelst, N. D., & Glas, C. A. W. (1995). The generalized one parameter model: OPLM. In G. H. Fischer & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Their foundations, recent developments and applications (pp. 215–238). New York: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Woehr, D. J., Arthur, W., & Fehrmann, M. L. (1991). An empirical comparison of cut-off score methods for content-related and criterion-related validity settings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 1029–1039.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zieky, M. J., Perie, M., Livingston, S. (2008). Cuts cores: A manual for setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. http://www.amazon.com/Cutscores-Standards-Performance-Educational Occupational/dp/1438250304/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jos Keuning .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Keuning, J., Straat, J.H., Feskens, R.C.W. (2017). The Data-Driven Direct Consensus (3DC) Procedure: A New Approach to Standard Setting. In: Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, JE. (eds) Standard Setting in Education. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50856-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50856-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50855-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50856-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)