[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-621029-105":59,"doc-detail-621029-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","inter-subject-standards-an-insoluble-problem","INTER-SUBJECT STANDARDS - An Insoluble Problem?","","Whatever their form of assessment, awarding bodies must create public confidence in the standards of the qualifications they endorse, ensuring usefulness and credibility. Comparability is easier across consecutive years, but much harder across different subjects within the same qualification and grading scheme. The paper reviews equating methods and subject-pairs techniques, then examines New Zealand’s standards-based framework and concludes with key assumptions behind inter-subject comparability.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/inter-subject-standards-an-insoluble-problem/621029/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/inter-subject-standards-an-insoluble-problem/621029.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Angel","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why is inter-subject comparability harder than comparability across years?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The paper notes that maintaining comparability between consecutive years is relatively straightforward, while demonstrating equivalence across different subjects within the same qualification and grading scheme is far more complex.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What are the paper’s main focus and structure?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It summarizes concerns about inter-subject standards in the English public examination system, describes three systems using statistical approaches for comparability, critiques the subject-pairs technique via related literature, and then discusses New Zealand’s standards-based National Qualifications Framework.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What does the paper conclude about inter-subject comparability?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It concludes by considering the implicit assumptions that underpin definitions of inter-subject comparability based on the discussed approaches, including how different frameworks treat statistical versus criterion-referenced methods.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},621029,1792877031,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},687207412472,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","INTER-SUBJECT STANDARDS: AN INSOLUBLE PROBLEM?  \nBen Jones (Assessment & Qualifications Alliance), David Philips (New Zealand Qualifications Authority), Rob van Krieken (The Scottish Qualification Authority)  \nABSTRACT  \nWhatever their constitution or the type of assessments they administer, it is a prime responsibility of all awarding bodies to engender public confidence in the standards of the qualifications they endorse, so that they have not only usefulness but credibility. Although guaranteeing comparability of standards between consecutive years is relatively straightforward, doing so between different subjects within the same qualification and with the same grading scheme is a far more complex issue. Whether standards are established judgementally or statistically ñ or, as in most contexts, a mixture of the two- satisfying public and practitioner opinion about equivalence is not easy. Common grade scales signify common achievement in diverse subjects, yet questions arise as to the meaning of that equivalence and how, ifat all, it can it be demonstrated. With the increase in qualification and credit frameworks, diplomas and so forth, such questions become formalised through the equating of different subjects and qualifications, sometimes through a system of weightings.  \nThis paper is based on two collaborative presentations made to the International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) conferences in 2003 and 2004. It summarises some recent concern about inter-subject standards in the English public examination system, and proceeds to describe three systemsí use of similar statistical approaches to inform comparability of inter-subjects standards. The methods are variants on the subject pairs technique, a critique of which is provided in the form of a review of some of the relevant literature. It then describes New Zealandís new ìstandards-basedî National Qualifications Framework, in which statistical approaches to standard setting, in particular its pairs analysis method, have been disregarded in favour of a strict criterion-referenced approach. The paper concludes with a consideration of the implicit assumptions underpinning the definitions of inter-subject comparability based on these approaches.  \n1. INTRODUCTION  \nIt is a requirement for most awarding bodies to maintain comparable standards between different specifications and subjects as well as between years. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), the regulatory authority for public examinations in England, for example, specifies in its Code of Practice for awarding bodies that their ìprime objectives are the maintenance of grade standards over time and across different specifications within a qualification typeî (para. 110, emphasis added) . The mechanisms for realising such equivalence are, however, often not made explicit by the regulatory or awarding bodies, although some have made attempts to address the question quantitatively and even qualitatively. For methodological reasons relating to the extensive assumptions which have tobe made (discussed more fully later) statistical approaches to the issue have not yielded unambiguous, unproblematic conclusions. Qualitative approaches have been hampered by  \nthe shortage of experts who are suitably qualified to make valid comparisons between disparate subject areas1 .  \nIn recent years, however, the focus of concern, in England at least, has been less about comparability of standards over time and more about standards between subjects. The trigger for this concern has been the substantial changes in entry pattern in GCE A levels and the claims made by various newspapers and educational practitioners that these were largely driven by candidates opting for easier subjects. Headlines such as ìPass rates soar as pupils chase ëeasyí A levelsî (The Times), ìPsychology, law and media studies: the ëscandalousí routes to A-level success?î and ìSlump in languages as head teachers say pupils are opting fo","cbCaivcpUN6Up5uW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivcpUN6Up5uW","pdf",265590,18,"English","# Abstract\n# 1. Introduction\n## Maintaining comparable grade standards\n## Drivers of concern about inter-subject standards\n## Claims and evidence from examination outcomes","[{\"question\":\"Why is inter-subject comparability harder than comparability across years?\",\"answer\":\"The paper notes that maintaining comparability between consecutive years is relatively straightforward, while demonstrating equivalence across different subjects within the same qualification and grading scheme is far more complex.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the paper’s main focus and structure?\",\"answer\":\"It summarizes concerns about inter-subject standards in the English public examination system, describes three systems using statistical approaches for comparability, critiques the subject-pairs technique via related literature, and then discusses New Zealand’s standards-based National Qualifications Framework.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the paper conclude about inter-subject comparability?\",\"answer\":\"It concludes by considering the implicit assumptions that underpin definitions of inter-subject comparability based on the discussed approaches, including how different frameworks treat statistical versus criterion-referenced methods.\"}]","INTER-SUBJECT STANDARDS - An Insoluble Problem? | PDF",1792464876,45]