It's Not Just Angoff: Misperceptions of Hard and Easy Items in Bookmark‐Type Ratings
Abstract
A common belief is that the Bookmark method is a cognitively simpler standard‐setting method than the modified Angoff method. However, a limited amount of research has investigated panelist's ability to perform well the Bookmark method, and whether some of the challenges panelists face with the Angoff method may also be present in the Bookmark method. This article presents results from three experiments where panelists were asked to give Bookmark‐type ratings to separate items into groups based on item difficulty data. Results of the experiments showed, consistent with results often observed with the Angoff method, that panelists typically and paradoxically perceived hard items to be too easy and easy items to be too hard. These perceptions were reflected in panelists often placing their Bookmarks too early for hard items and often placing their Bookmarks too late for easy items. The article concludes with a discussion of what these results imply for educators and policymakers using the Bookmark standard‐setting method.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An overreliance on standardized tests may not fully capture the cognitive abilities of students.
“One significant issue is the limitations of assessment methods; an overreliance on standardized tests may not fully capture the cognitive abilities of students [93,94].”
From Systematic literature review on critical thinking in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as [93]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Systematic literature review on critical thinking in higher education
Rothinam, N., Vengrasalam, R., Naidu, S., Nachiappan, S., & Jabamoney, S. (2025) · Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology · doi:10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wyse, A. E., & Babcock, B.
- Affiliations
- Renaissance
- The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
- Venue
- Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-02-26
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-29
- ISSN
- 0731-1745 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-3992
- OpenAlex
- W3007483724
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Measurement Issues and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
- Keywords
- Bookmark method, Angoff method, standard setting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review