Skip to content

Include both range-finding and pin-pointing phases when applying the body of work method

Design Process · All design processes
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 design), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description

The report stresses that the standard application of the body of work method involves two distinct phases: range-finding, where work samples cover the entire range sparsely, and pin-pointing, which uses only samples near the proposed cut scores. Omitting pin-pointing left judges unsure whether a single portfolio's classification defined a cut score and left large gaps between adjacent portfolios that did not define the cut score well.

Design Implications

Context

Requirements

  • Sufficient portfolios near proposed cut scores
  • Sufficient time for a second phase of review

Constraints

  • Pin-pointing was not possible in this project because of the limited number of portfolios and limited time

Target Learners

  • Students with significant disabilities in alternate assessment systems

Target Learning Objectives

  • Precise determination of performance level cut scores

Claims

Examples

Key Sources

  • Olson, B., Mead, R., & Payne, D. (2002). A report of a standard setting method for alternate assessments for students with significant disabilities (Synthesis Report 47). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED472306
Page metadata
Field Value
type process
id range-finding-and-pin-pointing-phases-required
title Include both range-finding and pin-pointing phases when applying the body of work method
description The report stresses that the standard application of the body of work method involves two distinct phases: range-finding, where work samples cover the entire range sparsely, and pin-pointing, which uses only samples n...
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-26
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — olson-2002

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.