View in EDS

Examining the Cut-Off Score of the English B1 Progression Exam According to Different Standard Setting Methods

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Cut-Off Score of the English B1 Progression Exam According to Different Standard Setting Methods
Language: English
Authors: Rümeysa Kaya (ORCID 0000-0003-3212-3032), Bayram Çetin (ORCID 0000-0001-5321-8028)
Source: International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2025 12(1):78-92.
Availability: International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Kinikli Campus, Denizli 20070, Turkey. e-mail: ijate.editor@gmail.com; Web site: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijate
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Standard Setting, Cutting Scores, Exit Examinations, Academic Achievement, Correlation, State Universities, Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, English (Second Language), Listening Comprehension, Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary Development, Language Usage, College Students, Test Items, Item Analysis, Foreign Countries, Language Tests
Geographic Terms: Turkey
ISSN: 2148-7456
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.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1463703
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1463703
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1463703
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Cut-Off Score of the English B1 Progression Exam According to Different Standard Setting Methods
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rümeysa+Kaya%22">Rümeysa Kaya</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3212-3032">0000-0003-3212-3032</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bayram+Çetin%22">Bayram Çetin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5321-8028">0000-0001-5321-8028</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Assessment+Tools+in+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 12(1):78-92.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Kinikli Campus, Denizli 20070, Turkey. e-mail: ijate.editor@gmail.com; Web site: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijate
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standard+Setting%22">Standard Setting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cutting+Scores%22">Cutting Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Exit+Examinations%22">Exit Examinations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Universities%22">State Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Comprehension%22">Listening Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Items%22">Test Items</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Item+Analysis%22">Item Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Tests%22">Language Tests</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkey%22">Turkey</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2148-7456
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1463703
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1463703
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 78
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Standard Setting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cutting Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Exit Examinations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Items
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Item Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkey
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Cut-Off Score of the English B1 Progression Exam According to Different Standard Setting Methods
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rümeysa Kaya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bayram Çetin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2148-7456
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 12
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1