首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
【24h】

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

机译:书签和昂贵标准设置方法在医疗性能测试中的有效性比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background One of the main processes of determining the ability level at which a student should pass an assessment is standard setting. The current study aimed to compare the validity of Angoff and bookmark methods in standard-setting. Method 190 individuals with an M.Sc. degree in laboratory science participated in the study. A test with 32 items, designed by a group of experts, was used to assess the laboratory skills of the participants. Moreover, two groups each containing 12 content specialists in laboratory sciences, voluntarily participated in the application of the Angoff and bookmark methods. To assess the process validity, a 5-item questionnaire was asked from two groups of panelists. To investigate the internal validity, the classification agreement was calculated using the kappa and Fleiss’s Kappa coefficient. External validity was assessed by using five indices (correlation with criterion score, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of correlation test with criterion score). Results The results showed that the obtained cut-scores was 17.67 for Angoff and 18.8 for bookmark. The average total of items related to the quality of the execution process was 4.25 for the Angoff group and 4.79 for the bookmark group. Pass rates pass rates percentages for the Angoff and bookmark group were 55.78 and 41.36, respectively. Correlations of passing/failing, between employer ratings and test scores were 0.69 and 0.88 for Angoff and bookmark methods, respectively. Conclusion Based on the results, it can be concluded that the process and internal validities of the bookmark method were higher than the Angoff method. For evaluation of the external validity (concordance of the cut score with the criterion score), all five external validity indices supported the bookmark method.
机译:背景技术确定学生应通过评估的能力级别的主要过程之一是标准设置。目前的研究旨在比较标准设置中的昂尊和书签方法的有效性。方法190具有M.Sc的个人。实验室学位参加了该研究。用一群专家设计的32项测试,用于评估参与者的实验室技能。此外,两个组在实验室科学中包含12个内容专家,自愿参与了昂昂夫和书签方法的应用。为了评估过程有效性,从两组小组成员询问了一个5项问卷。为了调查内部有效性,使用Kappa和Fleiss的Kappa系数计算分类协议。通过使用五个指数(与标准评分,特异性,敏感性和正相关测试的相关性测试的相关性进行相关性评估外部有效性)。结果结果表明,舒适的削减分数为17.67,用于书签18.8。昂昂off组和书签组的4.79,与执行过程质量相关的项目的平均项目为4.25。通过率和书签组的通行证率通过百分比分别为55.78和41.36。雇主评级和测试分数之间的通过/失败的相关性分别为舒适和书签方法0.69和0.88。结论基于结果,可以得出结论,书签方法的过程和内部有效性高于Angoff方法。对于对外部有效性的评估(与标准得分的剪切分数的一致性),所有五个外部有效性指数都支持书签方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号