Literature DB >> 15316271

Standard setting for OSCEs: trial of borderline approach.

Sue Kilminster1, Trudie Roberts.   

Abstract

OSCE examinations were held in May and June 2002 for all third and fourth year and some fifth year medical students at the University of Leeds. There has been an arbitrary pass mark of 65% for these examinations. However, we recognise that it is important to adopt a systematic approach towards standard setting in all examinations so held a trial of the borderline approach to standard setting for third and fifth year examinations. This paper reports our findings. The results for the year 3 OSCE demonstrated that the borderline approach to standard setting is feasible and offers a method to ensure that the pass standard is both justifiable and credible. It is efficient, requiring much less time than other methods and has the advantage of using the judgements of expert clinicians about actual practice. In addition it offers a way of empowering clinicians because it uses their expertise.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316271     DOI: 10.1023/B:AHSE.0000038208.06099.9a

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


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Order effects in high stakes undergraduate examinations: an analysis of 5 years of administrative data in one UK medical school.

Authors:  Jenni Burt; Gary Abel; Matt Barclay; Robert Evans; John Benson; Mark Gurnell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Enhancing the defensibility of examiners' marks in high stake OSCEs.

Authors:  Boaz Shulruf; Arvin Damodaran; Phil Jones; Sean Kennedy; George Mangos; Anthony J O'Sullivan; Joel Rhee; Silas Taylor; Gary Velan; Peter Harris
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 5.  Dental Undergraduate Views of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs): A Literature Review.

Authors:  James Puryer
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2016-03-19

6.  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.  Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School.

Authors:  Neelam Rekha Dwivedi; Narasimha Prasad Vijayashankar; Manisha Hansda; Arun Kumar Dubey; Fidelis Nwachukwu; Vernon Curran; Joseph Jillwin
Journal:  J Med Educ Curric Dev       Date:  2020-12-28

8.  Borderline grades in high stakes clinical examinations: resolving examiner uncertainty.

Authors:  Boaz Shulruf; Barbara-Ann Adelstein; Arvin Damodaran; Peter Harris; Sean Kennedy; Anthony O'Sullivan; Silas Taylor
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 2.463

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.