A Guide to Understanding and Developing Performance‐Level Descriptors

Abstract

There has been much discussion recently about why the percentage of students scoring Proficient or above varies as much as it does on state assessments across the country. However, most of these discussions center on the leniency or rigor of the cut score. Yet, the cut score is developed in a standard‐setting process that depends heavily on the definition for each level of performance. Good performance‐level descriptors (PLDs) can be the foundation of an assessment program, driving everything from item development to cut scores to reporting. PLDs should be written using a multistep process. First, policymakers determine the number and names of the levels. Next, they develop policy definitions specifying the level of rigor intended by each level, regardless of the grade or subject to which it is applied. Finally, content experts and education leaders should supplement these policy definitions with specific statements related to the content standards for each assessment. This article describes a process for developing PLDs, contrasts that with current state practice, and discusses the implication for interpreting the word “proficient,” which is the keystone of No Child Left Behind.

Construct Maps in Standard Setting: A Response and Some Additional Thoughts

“…Popham's (2013) issue, I think, is not so much with the idea of construct maps, but with the broader field of standard setting and the lack of clarity present in many performance-level descriptors. If one looks at several of the example performance-level descriptors shown in Perie (2009), one can see that a common way states and other organizations distinguish performance across performance levels is by using subjective qualifying words, such as inconsistent, consistent, some, limited, usually, accurately, and so on. A lot of these words do not lend themselves to being interpreted in the same way by all individuals.…”

A standards-based approach for reporting assessment results in South Africa

“…When developing PLDs, Perie (2008) notes that panellist should start with the policy definitions and expand these definitions in terms of specific knowledge, skills and abilities required at each level for each subject for each grade. Specifically, Perie (2008) proposes the following guidelines when developing PLDs.…”

“…Specifically, Perie (2008) proposes the following guidelines when developing PLDs. First, specify the number and name of the level, second, draft the policy definitions and then develop a written description for each level.…”

“…The policy definition should apply to all subjects and grade levels and should answer the question: how good is good enough? Perie (2008) notes that policy definitions facilitate the articulation of performance levels across grades by ensuring the same level of rigour at each level across each grade and allows a reader to interpret any specified level in a similar manner regardless of the subject assessed. To add more meaning to the policy definitions and to provide a basis for its use in practice, the authors added the two columns titled "Progression implications" and "Intervention implications".…”

Test Development with Performance Standards and Achievement Growth in Mind

“…Current practice in test development and building interpretation systems has evolved. For example, researchers now recommend writing proficiency level descriptors (e.g., in the form of generic policy definitions) to guide test development, development of grade and content area specific proficiency level descriptors, and standard setting (Bejar, Braun, & Tannenbaum, 2007; Egan, Schneider, & Ferrara, 2011; Perie, 2008). Similarly, methods to evaluate and improve alignment between test items and content standards are widely implemented (e.g., Porter, Polikoff, Zeidner, & Smithson, 2008; Webb, 2007) and required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) peer review.…”