Setting Performance Standards Grades 5-7 NJ ASK NJDOE Riverside Publishing May 17, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Standard Setting.
Advertisements

1 April 11,  Doug Kosty, Assistant Superintendent  Kimberly Harrington, ELD Teacher, Hillsboro School District ELPA Content Panel Member  Michelle.
Spiros Papageorgiou University of Michigan
Advanced Topics in Standard Setting. Methodology Implementation Validity of standard setting.
1 New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Setting Performance Standards.
The Bookmark Procedure Your Logo Here. Basics Arrange test items from easy to hard Examine each item in order Consider the likelihood of a correct response.
Presented by Denise Sibley Laura Jean Kerr Mississippi Assessment Center Research and Curriculum Unit.
Alternative Maryland School Assessment (Alt-MSA)
Prepared by Jan Sheinker, Ed.D Points of view or opinions expressed in the paper are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Education, or Offices.
New Hampshire Enhanced Assessment Initiative: Technical Documentation for Alternate Assessments Standard Setting Inclusive Assessment Seminar Marianne.
Standard Setting Different names for the same thing Standard Passing Score Cut Score Cutoff Score Mastery Level Bench Mark.
National Center on Educational Outcomes N C E O What the heck does proficiency mean for students with significant cognitive disabilities? Nancy Arnold,
Setting Alternate Achievement Standards Prepared by Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education NCEO Teleconference March 21, 2005.
June 23, 2003 Council of Chief State School Officers What Does “Proficiency” Mean for Students with Cognitive Disabilities Dr. Ron Cammaert Riverside Publishing.
The State of the State TOTOM Conference September 10, 2010 Jim Leigh Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Examing Rounding Rules in Angoff Type Standard Setting Methods Adam E. Wyse Mark D. Reckase.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Exam Setting Performance Standards With The Modified Angoff Procedure.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
REC 375—Leadership and Management of Parks and Recreation Services Jim Herstine, Ph.D., CPRP Assistant Professor Parks and Recreation Management UNC Wilmington.
Product Evaluation the outcome phase. Do the magic bullets work? How do you know when an innovative educational program has “worked”? How do you know.
Standard Setting Methods with High Stakes Assessments Barbara S. Plake Buros Center for Testing University of Nebraska.
Kaizen–What Can I Do To Improve My Program? F. Jay Breyer, Ph.D. Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual Conference September Phoenix,
Establishing MME and MEAP Cut Scores Consistent with College and Career Readiness A study conducted by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and ACT,
Overview of Standard Setting Leslie Wilson Assistant State Superintendent Accountability and Assessment August 26, 2008.
Setting Performance Standards for the Hawaii State Alternate Assessments: Reading, Mathematics, and Science Presentation for the Hawaii State Board of.
1 New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Setting Performance Standards.
Review and Validation of ISAT Performance Levels for 2006 and Beyond MetriTech, Inc. Champaign, IL MetriTech, Inc. Champaign, IL.
 Closing the loop: Providing test developers with performance level descriptors so standard setters can do their job Amanda A. Wolkowitz Alpine Testing.
{ Principal Leadership Evaluation. The VAL-ED Vision… The construction of valid, reliable, unbiased, accurate, and useful reporting of results Summative.
Employing Empirical Data in Judgmental Processes Wayne J. Camara National Conference on Student Assessment, San Diego, CA June 23, 2015.
Cut Points ITE Section One n What are Cut Points?
Raising the Bar for Oregon. Adopt New Math Cut Scores and Final Math Achievement Level Descriptors and Policy Definitions Adopt High School Math Achievement.
Setting Cut Scores on Alaska Measures of Progress Presentation to Alaska Superintendents Marianne Perie, AAI July 27, 2015.
Standard Setting Results for the Oklahoma Alternate Assessment Program Dr. Michael Clark Research Scientist Psychometric & Research Services Pearson State.
NH Commissioner’s Task Force Meeting September 21, 2010 NH DOE 1 Commissioner's Task Force Meeting: September 21, 2010.
NCATE for Dummies AKA: Everything You Wanted to Know About NCATE, But Didn’t Want to Ask.
A ssessment & E valuation. Assessment Answers questions related to individuals, “What did the student learn?” Uses tests and other activities to determine.
0 PARCC Performance Level Setting Place your logo here.
Alternate Proficiency Assessment Erin Lichtenwalner.
Using the Many-Faceted Rasch Model to Evaluate Standard Setting Judgments: An IllustrationWith the Advanced Placement Environmental Science Exam Pamela.
Evaluate Phase Pertemuan Matakuliah: A0774/Information Technology Capital Budgeting Tahun: 2009.
Development of the Egyptian Code of Practice for Student Assessment Lamis Ragab, MD, MHPE Hala Salah, MD.
Policy Definitions, Achievement Level Descriptors, and Math Achievement Standards.
Vertical Articulation Reality Orientation (Achieving Coherence in a Less-Than-Coherent World) NCSA June 25, 2014 Deb Lindsey, Director of State Assessment.
Unraveling the Mysteries of Setting Standards and Scaled Scores Julie Miles PhD,
The Role of the Internal and External Evaluators in Student Assessment Arthur Brown Advisor to the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project Republic.
NAEP Achievement Levels Michael Ward, Chair of COSDAM Susan Loomis, Assistant Director NAGB Christina Peterson, Project Director ACT.
How was LAA 2 developed?  Committee of Louisiana educators (general ed and special ed) Two meetings (July and August 2005) Facilitated by contractor.
Proposed End-of-Course (EOC) Cut Scores for the Spring 2015 Test Administration Presentation to the Nevada State Board of Education March 17, 2016.
Presentation to the Nevada Council to Establish Academic Standards Proposed Math I and Math II End of Course Cut Scores December 22, 2015 Carson City,
Review of Cut Scores and Conversion Tables (Angoff Method)
Setting Performance Standards EPSY 8225 Cizek, G.J., Bunch, M.B., & Koons, H. (2004). An NCME Instructional Module on Setting Performance Standards: Contemporary.
High School Proficiency Exam Nevada Department of Education.
Policy Definitions, Achievement Level Descriptors, and Math Standards.
CLEAR 2011 Annual Educational Conference
Assessments for Monitoring and Improving the Quality of Education
Next-Generation MCAS: Update and review of standard setting
RELATING NATIONAL EXTERNAL EXAMINATIONS IN SLOVENIA TO THE CEFR LEVELS
ELP Performance Level Descriptors
Updates on the Next-Generation MCAS
What we know about ab 705 Cheryl Aschenbach, North Representative
Standard Setting for NGSS
OREGON’S STANDARDS SETTING PROCESS
Test Administrators.
Accessibility Supports Training
Investigations using the
What we know about ab 705 Cheryl Aschenbach, North Representative
Standard Setting Zagreb, July 2009.
District and School Accountability System: Proposed Modifications
Deanna L. Morgan The College Board
Presentation transcript:

Setting Performance Standards Grades 5-7 NJ ASK NJDOE Riverside Publishing May 17, 2006

2 What do we mean by “Standard Setting ” ? Content standards: specify the content that should be learned by students – given implementation of the state standards and an opportunity to learn. Performance standards: specify the precise level of performance required on an assessment to achieve some category or outcome. How much must students know and be able to do?

3 Proficiency Levels on NJ ASK Advanced Proficient Partially Proficient Cut Score Advanced Cut Score

4 NJ ASK Grades 5-7 Standard Setting Phase 1  20 panelists on the Math Grades 5-7 & LAL Grade 7 panels  19 panelists on the LAL Grades 5-6 panels  Used a Modified Angoff procedure to calculate cut scores in a 2-day workshop Phase 2  Representatives from Phase 1 and state and local policy makers reviewed results  Examined consistency across grades and subjects

5 The Angoff Procedure Research-based procedure used since the early 1970s The most commonly used standard setting method — used in many other state testing programs as well as on certification tests Has undergone many modifications over the years and is often referred to as the Modified Angoff or Extended Angoff procedure

6 Angoff Procedure (con’t.) Original Angoff procedure asked panelists to examine each item on a test and determine whether a student who was just barely Proficient would answer it correctly A common modification is to ask “If we had 100 barely Proficient students in the room, how many of them would answer this item correctly?”

7 The Angoff Task Review each item For MC items, determine how many out of 100 just barely Proficient and just barely Advanced Proficient students should answer each item correctly For OE items, determine the average score a just barely student at each performance level should receive

8 Validity Considerations The process was well-planned – see standard setting proposal. All policy, operational and technical decisions were reasonable and well- documented. The judges were satisfied with the process and its results – see the evaluation results.

9 The Final Decision on Cut Scores – Reminder Legitimate authority should have all the information they want or need to make an informed decision At a minimum it should include:  Overall results – Phase 1 and Phase 2  Variance in judgments and in measurement  Impact on subpopulations in the state  Impact on accountability  Documentation of the process (with as much detail as is necessary)

10 Ratings Cut scores are determined over three rounds of ratings Ratings were made independently After each set of ratings, panelists saw their cut scores and the average cut scores There was a discussion between each round

11 Calculating the Cut Score Consider the MC ratings as probabilities We sum the probabilities to obtain a cut score for the MC items and add the average scores for the OE items to get the total cut score ItemRatingPossible Total= = 3.3 points out of a possible 6 points

12 “Just Barely” Performance The idea of just barely performance is key to the Angoff procedure We spent time talking about what it means to be just barely Proficient and Advanced Proficient Our discussions were driven by the NJ ASK LAL and Math Grades 5-7 Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs)

13 Phase 2 Meeting Policymakers and stakeholders gathered to review the results of Phase 1 in light of NJ ASK program goals. Reviewed results from Phase 1 along with standard deviation of judgments and impact data. Compared results of Grades 3, 4 & 8 LAL and Math with Grades 5-7 LAL and Math and discussed the need for consistency across grades and content areas.

14 Phase 2 Results: Final Cut Score Recommendations Committee produced cut score recommendations for NJDOE and the State Board:

15 Evidence the Results Were Technically Sound Survey Results (see handout) Standard deviation of judgments in each round:

16 Distribution of Students by Subgroup LAL Grade 5

17 Distribution of Students by Subgroup LAL Grade 6

18 Distribution of Students by Subgroup LAL Grade 7

19 Distribution of Students by Subgroup Math Grade 5

20 Distribution of Students by Subgroup Math Grade 6

21 Distribution of Students by Subgroup Math Grade 7

22 Final Recommended Cutscores LAL Grades 5-7 (with LAL Grades 3,4 &8)

23 Final Recommended Cutscores Math Grades 5-7 (with Math Grades 3,4 &8)

24 Key Statistics from Surveys