Evaluation of Passing Scores in Semiotics: An Objective Structured Clinical Examination for Medical Students of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran, ۲۰۱۵

سال انتشار: 1396
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 68

فایل این مقاله در 6 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_SDME-14-1_006

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 21 آذر 1402

چکیده مقاله:

Background Numerous exams are held at different levels and in different fields of medical sciences to evaluate students’ practical knowledge. In pass-fail exams where several examiners score the students, it is important to determine “the minimum passing score” or “the passing score” to determine whether students have passed or failed; this score is sometimes called the “cut-off point” or “standard score.” The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) method is employed for the final assessment of medical students in Semiotics I in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. The commonly used standard scoring method for this lesson is the fixed score method, which sometimes results in a discrepancy between educational management and the lecturers. Hence, the current study aims to compare ۴ different methods—the Cohen, borderline-group, borderline regression, and Hofstee methods—of determining the passing score in the semiotics course and comparing the results with those of the fixed score method. Methods A ۶-station OSCE was used to assess Semiotics I in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in ۲۰۱۵. In the current study, in order to determine a standard scale for scoring the students, two forms, Forms ۱ and ۲, and a checklist were completed for each student. In Form ۱, a ۵-option Likert scale scoring system, graded from poor to excellent, was used. Data from Form ۱ were analyzed using the borderline regression and borderline-group methods. Form ۲ included ۴ items and the collected data were analyzed using the Hofstee method. Data collected from both forms were analyzed, after the exams, using SPSS version ۱۶. Results The cut-off point established by the Cohen method was very close to that of the common method. In other words, there was no significant difference between the cut-off point determined by the Cohen method (۱۱.۷۳) and that of the common method (۱۲). The other study methods, however, such as borderline regression and borderline-group methods proposed higher cut-off points, which were significantly different from that of the common method: more students failed Semiotics I using these methods. The Hofstee method cannot be used in the OSCE, as the results were insignificant. Conclusions Because there was a significant difference in the number of students who passed the exam based on the fixed score and Cohen methods, and on the borderline-group and borderline regression methods, it is recommended that the latter methods not be widely employed. In addition, it is suggested that different methods should be used to define a mean standard passing score because, according to the statistics, an accurate and efficient estimator with minimum variances accuracy should be employed to evaluate population parameters, and the mean estimator would benefit from such advantages.

کلیدواژه ها:

Objective structured clinical examination ، Standard Score Determining Methods ، Cut-Off Point

نویسندگان

Abbas Makaren

Department of Medical Education, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

Hamid Mahdavifard

Department of Medical Education, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

Hasan Gholami

Department of Medical Education, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Mortaz Hejri S, Jalili M. Standard setting in medical education: ...
  • Harden RM, Gleeson FA. Assessment of clinical competence using an ...
  • Cusimano MD. Standard setting in medical education. Acad Med. ۱۹۹۶;۷۱(۱۰ ...
  • Wayne D, Cohen E. Standard Setting in Competency Evaluation. ; ...
  • Norcini JJ. Setting standards on educational tests. Med Educ. ۲۰۰۳;۳۷(۵):۴۶۴–۹. ...
  • Boulet JR, De Champlain AF, McKinley DW. Setting defensible performance ...
  • [PubMed: ۱۲۸۸۱۰۴۴] ...
  • Boursicot KA, Roberts TE, Pell G. Using borderline methods to ...
  • Kane MT, Crooks TJ, Cohen AS. Designing and Evaluating StandardSetting ...
  • Schoonheim-Klein M, Muijtjens A, Habets L, Manogue M, van der ...
  • Ben-David MF. AMEE Guide No. ۱۸: Standard setting in student ...
  • Kaufman DM, Mann KV, Muijtjens AM, van der Vleuten CP. ...
  • Plake BS, Hambleton RK, Jaeger RM. A New Standard-Setting Method ...
  • Ricker KL. Setting cut-scores: A critical review of the Angoff ...
  • Maurer TJ, Alexander RA, Callahan CM, Bailey JJ, Dambrot FH. ...
  • Kramer A, Muijtjens A, Jansen K, Dusman H, Tan L, ...
  • Brandon PR. Conclusions About Frequently Studied Modified Angoff Standard-Setting Topics. ...
  • Jalili M, Hejri SM, Norcini JJ. Comparison of two methods ...
  • [PubMed: ۲۲۱۲۲۴۲۸] ...
  • Chinn RN, Hertz NR. Alternative Approaches to Standard Setting for ...
  • Troncon LE. Clinical skills assessment: limitations to the introduction of ...
  • Wilkinson TJ, Newble DI, Frampton CM. Standard setting in an ...
  • ۲۰۰۱;۳۵(۱۱):۱۰۴۳–۹. [PubMed: ۱۱۷۰۳۶۴۰] ...
  • Davison I, Bullock AD. Evaluation of the Introduction of the ...
  • Smee SM, Blackmore DE. Setting standards for an objective structured ...
  • Humphrey-Murto S, MacFadyen JC. Standard setting: a comparison of case-author ...
  • Wood TJ, Humphrey-Murto SM, Norman GR. Standard setting in a ...
  • Bandaranayake RC. Setting and maintaining standards in multiplechoice examinations: AMEE ...
  • Searle J. Defining competency - the role of standard setting. ...
  • Jalili M, Mortazhejri S. Standard Setting for Objective Structured Clinical ...
  • Cizek GJ. Standard-Setting Guidelines. Educ Measure Issues Pract. ۲۰۰۵;۱۵(۱):۱۳–۲۱. doi: ...
  • Bay L. Standard Setting: A Guide to Establishing and Evaluating ...
  • Reid K, Dodds A. Comparing the borderline group and borderline ...
  • Barman A. Standard setting in student assessment: is a defensible ...
  • Taylor CA. Development of a modified Cohen method of standard ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع