Literature DB >> 16957872

Estimating the minimum number of judges required for test-centred standard setting on written assessments. do discussion and iteration have an influence?

S L Fowell1, R Fewtrell, P J McLaughlin.   

Abstract

Absolute standard setting procedures are recommended for assessment in medical education. Absolute, test-centred standard setting procedures were introduced for written assessments in the Liverpool MBChB in 2001. The modified Angoff and Ebel methods have been used for short answer question-based and extended matching question-based papers, respectively. Data collected has been analysed to investigate whether reliable standards can be achieved for small-scale, medical school-based assessments, to establish the minimum number of judges required and the effect of a discussion phase on reliability. The root mean squared error (RMSE) has been used as a measure of reliability and used to compute 95% confidence intervals for comparison to the examination statistics. The RMSE has been used to calculate the minimum number of judges required to obtain a predetermined minimum level of reliability, and the effect of the number of judges and number of items have been examined. Values of the RMSE obtained vary from 0.9 to 2.2%. Using average variances across each paper type, the minimum number of judges to obtain a RMSE of less than 2% is 10 or more judges before discussion or 6 or more judges after discussion. The results indicate that including a discussion phase improves the reliability and reduces the minimum number of judges required. Decision studies indicate that increasing the number of questions included in the assessments would not significantly improve the reliability of the standard setting.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16957872     DOI: 10.1007/s10459-006-9027-1

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


  9 in total

1.  Reliability and credibility of progress test criteria developed by alumni, faculty, and mixed alumni-faculty judge panels.

Authors:  H Glenn Anderson; Arthur A Nelson
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  An introduction to standard setting methods in dentistry.

Authors:  J Puryer; D O'Sullivan
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  Implementing standard setting into the Conjoint MAFP/FRACGP Part 1 examination - Process and issues.

Authors:  S C Chan; S Mohd Amin; T W Lee
Journal:  Malays Fam Physician       Date:  2016-08-31

4.  Standard setting in medical education: fundamental concepts and emerging challenges.

Authors:  Sara Mortaz Hejri; Mohammad Jalili
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2014-05-19

5.  Standard setting in Australian medical schools.

Authors:  Helena Ward; Neville Chiavaroli; James Fraser; Kylie Mansfield; Darren Starmer; Laura Surmon; Martin Veysey; Deborah O'Mara
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Determining whether Community Health Workers are 'Deployment Ready' Using Standard Setting.

Authors:  Celia Taylor; Basimenye Nhlema; Emily Wroe; Moses Aron; Henry Makungwa; Elizabeth L Dunbar
Journal:  Ann Glob Health       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 2.462

7.  Standard setting Very Short Answer Questions (VSAQs) relative to Single Best Answer Questions (SBAQs): does having access to the answers make a difference?

Authors:  Amir H Sam; Kate R Millar; Rachel Westacott; Colin R Melville; Celia A Brown
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 3.263

8.  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

9.  Insights into the Angoff method: results from a simulation study.

Authors:  Boaz Shulruf; Tim Wilkinson; Jennifer Weller; Philip Jones; Phillippa Poole
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 2.463

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.