Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods For Setting Minimum Passing Scores

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
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.

This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit: