Literature DB >> 14557105

Establishing passing standards for classroom achievement tests in medical education: a comparative study of four methods.

Steven M Downing1, Norman G Lieska, Michele D Raible.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the Direct Borderline standard-setting method, designed for classroom instructor use, and to compare the characteristics of this newer method to three well-established methods. Most standard-setting methods were designed for large-scale assessments, and most research has taken place in the context of high-stakes examinations.
METHOD: Four absolute standard-setting methods (Nedelsky, Direct Borderline, Hofstee, and Ebel) were studied for year 1 and 2 basic science examinations.
RESULTS: The Direct Borderline method produced passing scores similar to the Nedelsky method and was reproducible. The Hofstee and Ebel methods produced the lowest passing scores. Standard errors at the passing score were the same or lower for the Direct Borderline method compared with the Nedelsky method.
CONCLUSIONS: The Direct Borderline method has reasonable psychometric characteristics and may be practical for faculty to use in establishing absolute passing standards for classroom achievement tests.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14557105     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200310001-00027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  3 in total

1.  How to set the bar in competency-based medical education: standard setting after an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).

Authors:  Tim Dwyer; Sarah Wright; Kulamakan Mahan Kulasegaram; John Theodoropoulos; Jaskarndip Chahal; David Wasserstein; Charlotte Ringsted; Brian Hodges; Darrell Ogilvie-Harris
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 2.463

2.  Performance of the Ebel standard-setting method in spring 2019 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada internal medicine certification examination consisted of multiple-choice questions.

Authors:  Jimmy Bourque; Haley Skinner; Jonathan Dupré; Maria Bacchus; Martha Ainslie; Irene W Y Ma; Gary Cole
Journal:  J Educ Eval Health Prof       Date:  2020-04-20

3.  Group versus modified individual standard-setting on multiple-choice questions with the Angoff method for fourth-year medical students in the internal medicine clerkship.

Authors:  Vichai Senthong; Jarin Chindaprasirt; Kittisak Sawanyawisuth; Noppadol Aekphachaisawat; Suteeraporn Chaowattanapanit; Panita Limpawattana; Charoen Choonhakarn; Aumkhae Sookprasert
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2013-09-27
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.