Social scientists collect vital information that bears on issues of education policy. When the courts are faced with an opportunity to make a decision that shapes education, judges need access to high-quality research, but they must also be convinced that it can be useful in their decision making. This article approaches the question of how social…

Describes the judge's entry into a critical relationship with debate, investigates what it means to function as a "critic of argument," and considers the implications of this judging perspective on intercollegiate debate practices. (PD)

Judgmental standard setting approaches rely on the perceptions of experts about examinee performance on a test. Traditional standard setting methods ask panelists to estimate how well a randomly selected hypothetical examinee who is representative of a well-defined target group, usually a minimally competent candidate (MCC), will perform on each…

In a study involving eight judges, analysis with the FACETS model provides evidence that judges grade differently, whether or not scores correlate well. This outcome suggests that adjustments for differences among judges should be made before student measures are estimated to produce reproducible decisions. (SLD)

College debaters who go to law school are often surprised by the differences between the processes that take place in the court of reason and the process that takes place in the court of law. The court of reason relies mainly on authoritative testimony, while the court of law relies on direct evidence. Evidence in the court of reason is either…

The feasibility of constructing test forms with practically equivalent cut scores using judges' estimates of item difficulty as target "statistical" specifications was investigated. Test forms with equivalent judgmental cut scores (based on judgments of item difficulty) were assembled using items from six operational forms of the…