A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS
Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, o...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of educational measurement 1984-06, Vol.21 (2), p.113-129 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 129 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 113 |
| container_title | Journal of educational measurement |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | CROSS, LAWRENCE H. IMPARA, JAMES C. FRARY, ROBERT B. JAEGER, RICHARD M. |
| description | Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, only the Jaeger method requires that normative data be provided to the judges when evaluating the items. However, it was of interest to study the effect such information would have upon the standards obtained using the other two methods. Therefore, the design incorporated three sequential review sessions with the level of normative information different for each. A three-factor ANOVA revealed significant main effects for methods and sessions but not for subject area. None of the interactions was significant. The anticipated failure rates, the psychometric characteristics of the ratings, and other factors suggest that the Angoff procedure, as modified during the second session of this study, yields the most defensible standards for the NTE area examinations. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00224.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1295197965</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1434537</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1434537</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3193-b176b324c51262d19b0f50ad109cfd4da314473d5b18761e8c1f06161d4f0c383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkMtO4zAUhq0RSFMKbzALC9bp-MR23LBBJnWboCYZJUEzYmPlKjVcCknRtG-PQxCs8cKW_pulD6FzIDMw53c7A8G4Rd05m8Fw7QpCbJvN9j_Q5NM6QpNBtYjD-U900vctIcAFhwmqJfbi8I9MgjSOcLzEmZ8ohUOV-fEixcs4wSrN5PU6SP0gWuEwiILwNsRGixYyMRFTy3yFI5kFcSTXOFPS85Wp_ZMm_K6mp-i4yR_6-uzjnaLbpco831rHq8CTa6uk4FKrAOEU1GYlB9uxK3AL0nCSV0DcsqlYlVNgTNCKFzAXDtTzEhrigAMVa0hJ53SKLsbd52778lr3O91uX7sn86UG2-XgCtfhJnU5pspu2_dd3ejnbvOYdwcNRA9YdasHdnpgpwes-gOr3pvy1Vj-v3moD99o6hu1CAGoWfg1LrT9btt9LTDKOBXGtkZ70-_q_aedd_faEVRw_Tdaae9uQT07STWlb7AljhU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1295197965</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>CROSS, LAWRENCE H. ; IMPARA, JAMES C. ; FRARY, ROBERT B. ; JAEGER, RICHARD M.</creator><creatorcontrib>CROSS, LAWRENCE H. ; IMPARA, JAMES C. ; FRARY, ROBERT B. ; JAEGER, RICHARD M.</creatorcontrib><description>Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, only the Jaeger method requires that normative data be provided to the judges when evaluating the items. However, it was of interest to study the effect such information would have upon the standards obtained using the other two methods. Therefore, the design incorporated three sequential review sessions with the level of normative information different for each. A three-factor ANOVA revealed significant main effects for methods and sessions but not for subject area. None of the interactions was significant. The anticipated failure rates, the psychometric characteristics of the ratings, and other factors suggest that the Angoff procedure, as modified during the second session of this study, yields the most defensible standards for the NTE area examinations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0655</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-3984</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00224.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Coefficients ; Educational standards ; Estimate reliability ; Estimation methods ; Frequency standards ; Information standards ; Mathematics ; Normativity ; Psychometrics ; Reporting standards</subject><ispartof>Journal of educational measurement, 1984-06, Vol.21 (2), p.113-129</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1984 National Council on Measurement in Education</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3193-b176b324c51262d19b0f50ad109cfd4da314473d5b18761e8c1f06161d4f0c383</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3193-b176b324c51262d19b0f50ad109cfd4da314473d5b18761e8c1f06161d4f0c383</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1434537$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1434537$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27846,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>CROSS, LAWRENCE H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>IMPARA, JAMES C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FRARY, ROBERT B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JAEGER, RICHARD M.</creatorcontrib><title>A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS</title><title>Journal of educational measurement</title><description>Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, only the Jaeger method requires that normative data be provided to the judges when evaluating the items. However, it was of interest to study the effect such information would have upon the standards obtained using the other two methods. Therefore, the design incorporated three sequential review sessions with the level of normative information different for each. A three-factor ANOVA revealed significant main effects for methods and sessions but not for subject area. None of the interactions was significant. The anticipated failure rates, the psychometric characteristics of the ratings, and other factors suggest that the Angoff procedure, as modified during the second session of this study, yields the most defensible standards for the NTE area examinations.</description><subject>Coefficients</subject><subject>Educational standards</subject><subject>Estimate reliability</subject><subject>Estimation methods</subject><subject>Frequency standards</subject><subject>Information standards</subject><subject>Mathematics</subject><subject>Normativity</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Reporting standards</subject><issn>0022-0655</issn><issn>1745-3984</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1984</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkMtO4zAUhq0RSFMKbzALC9bp-MR23LBBJnWboCYZJUEzYmPlKjVcCknRtG-PQxCs8cKW_pulD6FzIDMw53c7A8G4Rd05m8Fw7QpCbJvN9j_Q5NM6QpNBtYjD-U900vctIcAFhwmqJfbi8I9MgjSOcLzEmZ8ohUOV-fEixcs4wSrN5PU6SP0gWuEwiILwNsRGixYyMRFTy3yFI5kFcSTXOFPS85Wp_ZMm_K6mp-i4yR_6-uzjnaLbpco831rHq8CTa6uk4FKrAOEU1GYlB9uxK3AL0nCSV0DcsqlYlVNgTNCKFzAXDtTzEhrigAMVa0hJ53SKLsbd52778lr3O91uX7sn86UG2-XgCtfhJnU5pspu2_dd3ejnbvOYdwcNRA9YdasHdnpgpwes-gOr3pvy1Vj-v3moD99o6hu1CAGoWfg1LrT9btt9LTDKOBXGtkZ70-_q_aedd_faEVRw_Tdaae9uQT07STWlb7AljhU</recordid><startdate>198406</startdate><enddate>198406</enddate><creator>CROSS, LAWRENCE H.</creator><creator>IMPARA, JAMES C.</creator><creator>FRARY, ROBERT B.</creator><creator>JAEGER, RICHARD M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>National Council on Measurement in Education</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JILTI</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198406</creationdate><title>A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS</title><author>CROSS, LAWRENCE H. ; IMPARA, JAMES C. ; FRARY, ROBERT B. ; JAEGER, RICHARD M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3193-b176b324c51262d19b0f50ad109cfd4da314473d5b18761e8c1f06161d4f0c383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1984</creationdate><topic>Coefficients</topic><topic>Educational standards</topic><topic>Estimate reliability</topic><topic>Estimation methods</topic><topic>Frequency standards</topic><topic>Information standards</topic><topic>Mathematics</topic><topic>Normativity</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Reporting standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CROSS, LAWRENCE H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>IMPARA, JAMES C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FRARY, ROBERT B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JAEGER, RICHARD M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 32</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Journal of educational measurement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CROSS, LAWRENCE H.</au><au>IMPARA, JAMES C.</au><au>FRARY, ROBERT B.</au><au>JAEGER, RICHARD M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS</atitle><jtitle>Journal of educational measurement</jtitle><date>1984-06</date><risdate>1984</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>113</spage><epage>129</epage><pages>113-129</pages><issn>0022-0655</issn><eissn>1745-3984</eissn><abstract>Minimum standards were established for the National Teacher Examinations (NTE) area examinations in mathematics and in elementary education by independent panels of teacher educators who had been instructed in the use of either the Angoff, Nedelsky, or Jaeger procedures. Of these three procedures, only the Jaeger method requires that normative data be provided to the judges when evaluating the items. However, it was of interest to study the effect such information would have upon the standards obtained using the other two methods. Therefore, the design incorporated three sequential review sessions with the level of normative information different for each. A three-factor ANOVA revealed significant main effects for methods and sessions but not for subject area. None of the interactions was significant. The anticipated failure rates, the psychometric characteristics of the ratings, and other factors suggest that the Angoff procedure, as modified during the second session of this study, yields the most defensible standards for the NTE area examinations.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00224.x</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-0655 |
| ispartof | Journal of educational measurement, 1984-06, Vol.21 (2), p.113-129 |
| issn | 0022-0655 1745-3984 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1295197965 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Coefficients Educational standards Estimate reliability Estimation methods Frequency standards Information standards Mathematics Normativity Psychometrics Reporting standards |
| title | A COMPARISON OF THREE METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS ON THE NATIONAL TEACHER EXAMINATIONS |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T14%3A55%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THREE%20METHODS%20FOR%20ESTABLISHING%20MINIMUM%20STANDARDS%20ON%20THE%20NATIONAL%20TEACHER%20EXAMINATIONS&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20educational%20measurement&rft.au=CROSS,%20LAWRENCE%20H.&rft.date=1984-06&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=113&rft.epage=129&rft.pages=113-129&rft.issn=0022-0655&rft.eissn=1745-3984&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00224.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1434537%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1295197965&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1434537&rfr_iscdi=true |