I was delighted to crack a really tough question on the pm paper. It took three calcs to get the answer.
As I walked out heard a couple of other candidates saying they could not figure that question out so:
based on the modified anghoff methodology would I get more credit for getting a harder question right or does it weight the entire paper? Ie could 2 candidates get the same number of questions right and wrong but one passes and the other does not?
cheers
realestate_cfa
Did you report them?
My taser was fully charged, safety-off ready to take them down
Unfortunately, I was a bit groggy after a 6 hour L3 trial so was worried I would have taken some L1 noobs as collateral damage, so this time I think they might have got away with it.
Big crowd, lots of chatter - no
Anything on Modified Anghoff?
Yeah perfect Ethics question ha. Anyway, who knows? my guess would be all questions should be treated equally? Using this argument, conversely if you got a simple question wrong, you should get penalised by Anghoff as well. Probably not the case.
Yeah well…I actually think that the difficulty of the question can only bring down the MPS and not the individual scores. If you do get the more difficult questions correctly, it helps! The assumption there is that you scored 100% in the question whereas the MPS ranks a passing candidate, say 50% for the same question (implying advantage 50%). On the contrary, a wrong choice for a simple question will imply 0% score while the MPS ranks the same question, say 80% (implying disadvantage 80%).
It appears to me that a wrong choice of answer for a simple question hurts more than getting correctly a difficult question.
My 2 cents…
Modified Angoff compares your overall score to the score of a marginal passing candidate. It doesn’t take any account of how hard the individual marks were to get. That said, the differences between candidates appears to be very marginal at L3 and if you’re getting questions right that most other people are getting wrong then you are in a much better position.
An adaptive test like the GMAT does take into account the difficulty of questions and feeds you progressively harder/easier questions based on your responses until it figures out your level of ability.
Actually Modified Angoff requires the CFAI to say what percentage of minimally competent practicioners would pass that question. This exercise is repeated for all questions and averaged out across all the questions. CFAI would then select the passing mark based on a 95% confidence interval of this distribution.
So in answer to the OP ut could be good for you, but only if the examing board thought the question was difficult. If it is just the candidate pool who find it hard you’re out of luck.
I just sat through a standard setting for a professional finance designation as a panel member in Canada last week using the Modified Angoff as one of the methods. It is quite an interesting process.
A panel of professionals goes through each question of the exam and assigns a probability that a borderline successful candidate would be successful on that question. That is done for each question by each panel member. The scores for the entire panel are averaged out and a cut score (points required to pass) is established.
So in the end, if the panel felt a particular question was very difficult, they would have assigned a lower probability of success to it, which would increase the overall pass mark (or MPS), ceteris paribus.
The output of the modified Angoff is usually a guideline and often a second method is used as confirmation. I am sure that the Board has the right to deviate from the Modified Angoff output by a certain corridor to set the pass rate for operational/political reasons.
No, answering a difficult question correctly does not give you any additional advantage. The points for each question are clearly stated in the exam paper. Since you mention the PM paper it’s all multiple choice item set questions with each item set worth 18 points and 6 questions per item set with 3 points each. If you did a really hard question in an item set accurately, you will get the 3 points that its worth, if you did a really hard item set correctly (all 6 questions) you will get the 18 points that its worth.
The purpose of the modified Angoff method is not to assign weightage to a question for grading individual candidate’s answersheets but rather to assign a weight to each question to arrive at a score which a minimum qualified candidate will have been able to achieve in the exam. This score, called a cutscore (in psychometrics) will then be used to arrive at a MPS.
^ well done VR.
Definitely sounds like the way CFAI grades it’s paper and MPS.
Pretty good document on the process:
https://www.questionmark.com/us/seminars/Documents/webinar_angoff_handout_may_2012.pdf