A Validity Study Of Expert Judgment Procedures For Setting Cutoff Scores On High-Stakes Credentialing Examinations Using Cluster Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares an expert judgment process--minimal performance levels (MPL) using the Nedelsky and Ebel procedures--for setting cutoff scores for pass/fail on licensure examinations with an empirical approach--cluster analysis. Data from all three components of the Canadian Standard Assessment in Optometry (CSAO) examinations (knowledge, clinical judgment, and clinical skills) from 243 candidates were obtained. Results indicate that for the written components of the exams employing the Nedelsky method of MPL setting, there was a mean agreement of pass/fail of 81% with the cluster analysis approach on pass/fail categorization. For the performance exams using the Ebel method, the mean agreement of pass/fail with the cluster analysis was 93%. Thus the subjective approaches to setting cutoff scores (i.e., expert judgment methods) converge with the objective method (i.e., cluster analysis) of classifying test takers in the same categories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it