Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Melican, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Plake, B. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Correction for Guessing and Nedelsky's Standard-Setting Method: Are they Compatible?

Gerald J. Melican

Educational Testing Service

Barbara S. Plake

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Combining the Livingston and Zieky (1982) correction to a cut score for an examination using correction-for-guessing scoring is reasonable if minimally competent candidates (MCCs) omit only those items for which they cannot eliminate any of the options. Otherwise, the corrected cut-score will be overly harsh, resulting in additional errors in classifications. In this study, omit behavior on a 48-item Mathematics Achievement Test of an empirically established group of MCCs was compared to the predictions of five expert judges. The results suggest that this group of examinees tended to respond to the items with an omit pattern similar to that predicted by the judges.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 3, No. 1, 31-36 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/073428298500300103
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?