In education, standards have to be interpreted, for planning of teaching, for development of assessments and for alignment analysis. In most cases, it is important that there is an agreement between individuals and organizations about how to interpret standards. However, there is a lack of studies of how consistent different group of judges are when interpreting standards. In this study, the usefulness of Bloom's revised taxonomy for interpreting standards in mathematics is evaluated, using different criteria. The results indicate that the taxonomy is an acceptable tool. The results also indicate that there are differences between the panel composed of teachers and the panel composed of assessment experts. The assessment experts were more consistent in their interpretation of standards. Limitations of the study and requirements for alignment analysis are discussed. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.)