Examining the cut-off score of the English B1 progression exam according to different standard setting methods

In this study, the cut-off scores obtained from the Angoff, Angoff Y/N, Nedelsky and Ebel standard methods were compared with the 50 T score and the current cut-off score in various aspects. Data were collected from 448 students who took Module B1+ English Exit Exam IV and 14 experts. It was seen that while the Nedelsky method gave the lowest cut-off score, Angoff Y/N method gave the highest cut-off score. The z test was used to determine the difference between the percentages of students who were considered successful according to the methods, and all z values were found to be significant. The classification of students according to their achievement status was examined with the Cohen's Kappa test. Spearman Brown Rank Differences Correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the relationship between the MPSs of the experts according to the methods, and the highest correlation was found between the Angoff-Ebel methods. Wilcoxon test was used to examine the significance of the difference between the MPS of the methods. Because of the test, the difference between Angoff-Nedelsky, Angoff-Ebel, Angoff Y/N-Nedelsky and Nedelsky-Ebel methods was found to be significant. Among the expert decisions, it was seen that there was a moderate level of agreement in the Angoff, and a high level of agreement in the Ebel and Nedelsky methods. A significant difference was found between the current cut-off score, the 50 T score, and the percentages of students considered successful according to the methods.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
Published
2025-01-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1371162
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.40

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examining the cut-off score of the English B1 progression exam according to different standard setting methods

Bayram Çeti̇n, Rümeysa Kaya
1 citations
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
1.40
article

Examining the cut-off score of the English B1 progression exam according to different standard setting methods

Bayram Çeti̇n, Rümeysa Kaya
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In this study, the cut-off scores obtained from the Angoff, Angoff Y/N, Nedelsky and Ebel standard methods were compared with the 50 T score and the current cut-off score in various aspects. Data were collected from 448 students who took Module B1+ English Exit Exam IV and 14 experts. It was seen that while the Nedelsky method gave the lowest cut-off score, Angoff Y/N method gave the highest cut-off score. The z test was used to determine the difference between the percentages of students who were considered successful according to the methods, and all z values were found to be significant. The classification of students according to their achievement status was examined with the Cohen's Kappa test. Spearman Brown Rank Differences Correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the relationship between the MPSs of the experts according to the methods, and the highest correlation was found between the Angoff-Ebel methods. Wilcoxon test was used to examine the significance of the difference between the MPS of the methods. Because of the test, the difference between Angoff-Nedelsky, Angoff-Ebel, Angoff Y/N-Nedelsky and Nedelsky-Ebel methods was found to be significant. Among the expert decisions, it was seen that there was a moderate level of agreement in the Angoff, and a high level of agreement in the Ebel and Nedelsky methods. A significant difference was found between the current cut-off score, the 50 T score, and the percentages of students considered successful according to the methods.

International Journal of Assessment Tools in EducationVol. 12(1)
Gaziantep University (TR)
Gaziantep Üniversitesi
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
1.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.