Abstract
The Angoff method for setting cutoff scores on examinations has been researched extensively over the past 30 years, including investigations of several procedural modifications to the method. In the current study, the authors meta-analytically synthesized this research and evaluated the systematic effects of the most common modifications on the level of the resulting cutoff scores and the degree of consensus among judges. The authors found the following: (a) when judges use a common definition of minimally competent test-takers, this tends to increase judgment consensus; (b) when judges discuss their estimates, this tends to result in higher cutoff scores with increased consensus; and (c) when judges view normative data, this tends to systematically lower cutoff scores. In addition, the authors found an interaction effect which revealed that when judges use a common definition and later discuss their estimates, this tends to produce the highest standards on average, with the highest degree of consensus among judges. Theoretical and practical implications of these effects are discussed.