Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Angoff anchor statements
T2 - setting a flawed gold standard?
AU - Burr, Steven Ashley
AU - Zahra, Daniel
AU - Cookson, John
AU - Salih, Vehid Max
AU - Gabe-Thomas, Elizabeth
AU - Robinson, Iain Martin
PY - 2017/9/21
Y1 - 2017/9/21
N2 - The Angoff standard setting method depends fundamentally on the conceptualisation of an anchor statement. The precise wording and consequent interpretation of anchor statements varies in practice. Emphasis is often placed on standard setting judges' perceptions of difficulty for a candidate subgroup. The current review focusses on the meaning of anchor statements and argues that when determining the required standard of performance it is more appropriate to consider: (1) what it is important to achieve, and not how difficult it is to achieve it; (2) what all candidates should achieve, and not what a subgroup of candidates would achieve. In summary, current practice should be refined by using an anchor statement which refers to estimating the 'minimum acceptable performance by every candidate' for each item being tested, and then requiring each judge to score the relevant aspects of importance which could then be combined to derive a cut-score.
AB - The Angoff standard setting method depends fundamentally on the conceptualisation of an anchor statement. The precise wording and consequent interpretation of anchor statements varies in practice. Emphasis is often placed on standard setting judges' perceptions of difficulty for a candidate subgroup. The current review focusses on the meaning of anchor statements and argues that when determining the required standard of performance it is more appropriate to consider: (1) what it is important to achieve, and not how difficult it is to achieve it; (2) what all candidates should achieve, and not what a subgroup of candidates would achieve. In summary, current practice should be refined by using an anchor statement which refers to estimating the 'minimum acceptable performance by every candidate' for each item being tested, and then requiring each judge to score the relevant aspects of importance which could then be combined to derive a cut-score.
U2 - 10.15694/mep.2017.000167
DO - 10.15694/mep.2017.000167
M3 - Journal article
JO - MedEdPublish
JF - MedEdPublish
SN - 2312-7996
ER -