Literature DB >> 18820491

Setting standards for performance tests: a pilot study of a three-level Angoff method.

Rachel Yudkowsky1, Steven M Downing, Mihaela Popescu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Yes/No Angoff method is a standard-setting variant in which judges estimate whether a borderline student would or would not accomplish each item. However, when there is a 50% chance of success, systematically severe or lenient ratings may skew the cut score. This study piloted a three-level Angoff in which items were assigned to "Yes," "No," or "Maybe" categories.
METHOD: Five judges provided three-level Angoff ratings for seven checklists used in a clinical skills exam for fourth-year students. Systematic severity and leniency were simulated by converting all "Maybe" ratings to "Yes" or "No" ratings, respectively.
RESULTS: Forty-one percent of 121 items had at least one "Maybe" rating. Ten percent of all ratings were in the "Maybe" category. One judge accounted for 83% of all "Maybe" ratings; three did not use it at all. Case failure rates varied considerably depending on the simulated severity of ratings. Overall failure rates were not substantially impacted.
CONCLUSIONS: The three-level Angoff retains the cognitive simplicity of the Yes/No Angoff while addressing the challenge of items midrange for the borderline candidate.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18820491     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183c683

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


  4 in total

1.  Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels.

Authors:  Danielle M Muscat; Suzanne Morony; Lyndal Trevena; Andrew Hayen; Heather L Shepherd; Sian K Smith; Haryana M Dhillon; Karen Luxford; Don Nutbeam; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  Health Lit Res Pract       Date:  2019-10-03

2.  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

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

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.