Literature DB >> 12386445

Relative or Absolute Standards in Assessing Medical Knowledge Using Progress Tests.

A.M.M. Muijtjens1, R.J.I. Hoogenboom, G.M. Verwijnen, C.P.M. Van Der Vleuten.   

Abstract

Norm-referenced pass/fail decisions are quite common in achievement testing in health sciences education. The use of relative standards has the advantage of correcting for variations in test-difficulty. However, relative standards also show some serious drawbacks, and the use of an absolute and fixed standard is regularly preferred. The current study investigates the consequences of the use of an absolute instead of a relative standard. The performance of the developed standard setting procedure was investigated by using actual progress test scores obtained at the Maastricht medical school in an episode of eight years. When the absolute instead of the relative standard was used 6% of the decisions changed: 2.6% of the outcomes changed from fail to pass, and 3.4% from pass to fail. The failure rate, which was approximately constant when using the relative standard, varied from 2% to 47% for different tests when an absolute standard was used. It is concluded that an absolute standard is precarious because of the variations in difficulty of tests.

Year:  1998        PMID: 12386445     DOI: 10.1023/A:1009728423412

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract        ISSN: 1382-4996            Impact factor:   3.853


  6 in total

1.  Ability of Pharmacy Students, Pharmacists and Pharmacy Support Staff to Manage Childhood Fever via Simulation.

Authors:  Beatrice C Wigmore; Jack C Collins; Carl R Schneider; Daniel Arias; Rebekah J Moles
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  Learning physical examination skills outside timetabled training sessions: what happens and why?

Authors:  Robbert J Duvivier; Koos van Geel; Jan van Dalen; Albert J J A Scherpbier; Cees P M van der Vleuten
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 3.853

3.  Toward a better judgment of item relevance in progress testing.

Authors:  Xandra M C Janssen-Brandt; Arno M M Muijtjens; Dominique M A Sluijsmans
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities.

Authors:  John C McLachlan; K Alex Robertson; Bridget Weller; Marina Sawdon
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  Knowledge assessment of trainees and trainers in general practice in a neighboring country. Making a case for international collaboration.

Authors:  Roy Remmen; Johan Wens; Annelies Damen; Herman Duesman; Veronique Verhoeven
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  Practical Clinical Training in Skills Labs: Theory and Practice.

Authors:  T J Bugaj; C Nikendei
Journal:  GMS J Med Educ       Date:  2016-08-15
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.