Reliability and Validity of Bookmark‐Based Methods for Standard Setting: Comparisons to Angoff‐Based Methods in the National Assessment of Educational Progress

Historically, Angoff‐based methods were used to establish cut scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In 2005, the National Assessment Governing Board oversaw multiple studies aimed at evaluating the reliability and validity of Bookmark‐based methods via a comparison to Angoff‐based methods. As the Board considered adoption of Bookmark‐based methods, it considered several criteria, including reliability of the cut scores, validity of the cut scores as evidenced by comparability of results to those from Angoff, and procedural validity as evidenced by panelist understanding of the method tasks and instructions and confidence in the results. As a result of their review, a Bookmark‐based method was adopted for NAEP, and has been used since that time. This article goes beyond the Governing Board's initial evaluations to conduct a systematic review of 27 studies in NAEP research conducted over 15 years. This research is used to evaluate Bookmark‐based methods on key criteria originally considered by the Governing Board. Findings suggest that Bookmark‐based methods have comparable reliability, resulting cut scores, and panelist evaluations to Angoff. Given that Bookmark‐based methods are shorter in duration and less costly, Bookmark‐based methods may be preferable to Angoff for NAEP standard setting.