{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017970401691331923, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010570824524312897, 'mean_word_length': 5.912408759124087, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing Construct Definition in the Angoff and Objective Standard Setting Models

Typical validation studies on standard setting models, most notably the Angoff and modified Angoff models, have ignored construct development, a critical aspect associated with all conceptualizations of measurement processes. Stone compared the Angoff and objective standard setting (OSS) models and found that Angoff failed to define a legitimate and stable construct. The present study replicates and expands this work by presenting results from a 5-year investigation of both models, using two different approaches (equating and annual standard setting) within two testing settings (health care and education). The results support the original conclusion that although the OSS model demonstrates effective construct development, the Angoff approach appears random and lacking in clarity. Implications for creating meaningful and valid standards are discussed.