Keying 'Either ... or' in a Placement Grammar Section
At the post-pilot review of the SLLC entrance grammar section, the committee examines Item 14 of 30: 'Either the principal or the teachers ___ responsible for supervision.' The provisional key is 'is', because the grammar notes treat 'either' as the head that governs agreement. In the pilot, 480 candidates attempted the item: 212 chose 'is', 241 chose 'are', and 27 left it blank. The facility is 0.44 and the point-biserial correlation is 0.03. A marker points out that the noun nearest the verb is plural, so proximity concord makes 'are' defensible; another insists the key must follow the formal rule. The grammar section is worth 30 of 100 points, and the overall pass mark is 60. Two other items are also flagged. The committee must decide whether to retain the key, accept both answers, or void the item, and must explain the effect on candidates near the pass boundary.
1. Recommend a scoring decision for Item 14 and justify it using agreement rules and the item statistics.
Read the worked answer
The item has two defensible answers. Under formal agreement, 'either ... or' can take a verb agreeing with the nearer subject, and with a plural second element 'are' is widely accepted; 'is' is also defensible if the construction is treated as singular. Because both are standard, a single key penalises a correct response. The statistics support this: facility 0.44 with a point-biserial of 0.03 means the item barely separates stronger from weaker candidates, which is what happens when the keyed answer is not the only right one. I would double-key 'is' and 'are' rather than void the item. Voiding would give a point to everyone, including the 27 who left it blank and anyone who chose an impossible form; double-keying gives credit only to the two defensible answers and keeps the section at 30 points. The committee should record the rationale and check how many candidates move across the 60-point boundary after rescoring.
2. Rewrite Item 14 so that it has one defensible answer while still testing subject–verb agreement with an intervening phrase. Explain your design.
Read the worked answer
Replace it with: 'Each of the teachers ___ responsible for supervision.' Key: 'is'. 'Each' is the subject and is grammatically singular; the plural noun 'teachers' sits inside a prepositional phrase and cannot govern the verb. Unlike 'either ... or', there is no second subject to trigger proximity concord, and unlike collective nouns such as 'committee', there is no variety-dependent choice between singular and plural. The item still tests whether candidates can ignore an intervening plural and find the head noun, which is the same skill the original intended to assess. If the committee wants a plural answer, a parallel item can use 'The teachers, each of whom ___ ...' but that adds relative-clause complexity. I would keep the item short and add a second item with 'Neither the principal nor the vice-principal ___' to test formal 'either/or' agreement where both subjects are singular and the answer is unambiguous.
3. After the original key, 241 candidates who chose 'are' fall one point below the pass mark. What should the committee do, and what should it report?
Read the worked answer
First rescore all scripts with the double key and identify exactly how many candidates cross the 60-point boundary. A one-point change can matter, but the committee should not adjust the cut score simply to preserve a pass rate; the cut score was set on expected performance, and a key correction is a correction of error, not a change in standard. Report the number affected, the old and new totals, and the fact that the item had a 0.03 point-biserial. If the double key creates a large shift, the safer option is to drop the item and rescale the grammar section to 29 points, converting the pass mark proportionally; however, that gives a point to candidates who chose an indefensible form, so double-keying is more precise. The final report should also note that the item will be replaced in the next form.