Literature DB >> 14631613

A model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations.

Gregg Talente1, Steven A Haist, John F Wilson.   

Abstract

Setting standards for complex performance assessments is difficult. This report describes and evaluates a model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations. A variation of a modified Angoff standard-setting procedure was used to set cutoffs for a standardized patient exercise. Analysis of the procedure was based on evaluation of the impact of the iterative process, the ability of the final standards to accurately classify trainees and the judges' confidence in the procedure and final standards. The practicality of the process also was assessed. The iterative steps in this procedure led to a reduction in the variance between the judges' ratings. All seven judges reported confidence in the final standards. The mean time commitment for each judge was 4.7 work hours. This model for setting performance standards successfully set useful standards for this exam, was practical, and can be utilized to set performance standards for other standardized patient examinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14631613     DOI: 10.1177/0163278703258105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eval Health Prof        ISSN: 0163-2787            Impact factor:   2.651


  7 in total

1.  Pediatrics milestone project: next steps toward meaningful outcomes assessment.

Authors:  Patricia J Hicks; Robert Englander; Daniel J Schumacher; Ann Burke; Bradley J Benson; Susan Guralnick; Stephen Ludwig; Carol Carraccio
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2010-12

2.  Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Jay Parikh; Edward A Sickles; Stephen A Feig; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Robert A Smith; Robert Rosenberg; Laura Ichikawa; James Wallace; Khai Tran; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Laura Ichikawa; Robert A Smith; Lawrence W Bassett; Stephen A Feig; Barbara Monsees; Jay R Parikh; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; R James Brenner; Stephen A Feig; Robert A Smith; Robert D Rosenberg; T Andrew Bogart; Sally Browning; Jane W Barry; Mary M Kelly; Khai A Tran; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Assessment of urology postgraduate trainees' competencies in flexible ureteroscopic stone extraction.

Authors:  Mehdi Aloosh; Félix Couture; Nader Fahmy; Mostafa M Elhilali; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Standard setting: comparison of two methods.

Authors:  Sanju George; M Sayeed Haque; Femi Oyebode
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests.

Authors:  Majid Yousefi Afrashteh
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 2.463

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.