described by each of the levels. This allows for more reliable estimates of test-takers’ skills and more accurate classification of individuals into the various performance levels.

While determination of the performance-level descriptions is usually completed early in the test development process, determination of the cut scores between the performance levels is usually made after the test has been administered and examinees’ answers are available. Typically, the process of setting cut scores involves convening a group of panelists with expertise in areas relevant to the subject matter covered on the test and familiarity with the test-taking population, who are instructed to make judgments about what test takers need to know and be able to do (e.g., which test items individuals should be expected to answer correctly) in order to be classified into a given performance level. These judgments are used to determine the cut scores that separate the performance levels.

Methods for setting cut scores are used in a wide array of assessment contexts, from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state-sponsored achievement tests, in which procedures are used to determine the level of performance required to classify students into one of several performance levels (e.g., basic, proficient, or advanced), to licensing and certification tests, in which procedures are used to determine the level of performance required to pass such tests in order to be licensed or certified.

There is a broad literature on procedures for setting cut scores on tests. In 1986, Berk documented 38 methods and variations on these methods, and the literature has grown substantially since. All of the methods rely on panels of judges, but the tasks posed to the panelists and the procedures for arriving at the cut scores differ. The methods can be classified as test-centered, examinee-centered, and standards-centered.

The modified Angoff and bookmark procedures are two examples of test-centered methods. In the modified Angoff procedure, the task posed to the panelists is to imagine a typical minimally competent examinee and to decide on the probability that this hypothetical examinee would answer each item correctly (Kane, 2001). The bookmark method requires placing all of the items in a test in order by difficulty; panelists are asked to place a “bookmark” at the point between the most difficult item borderline test takers would be likely to answer correctly and the easiest item borderline test takers would be likely to answer incorrectly (Zeiky, 2001).

The borderline group and contrasting group methods are two examples of examinee-centered procedures. In the borderline group method, the panelists are tasked with identifying examinees who just meet the performance standard; the cut score is set equal to the median score for these examinees (Kane, 2001). In the contrasting group method, the panelists are asked to categorize examinees into two groups—an upper group that has clearly met

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement