ArticleBMC medical education2018
Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting.
Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Equal Z standard-setting method to estimate the minimum number of panelists for a medical school’s objective structured clinical examination in Taiwan: a simulation studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2022Article
- Standard setting made easy: validating the Equal Z-score (EZ) method for setting cut-score for clinical examinations.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Predictive validity of a tool to resolve borderline grades in OSCEs.GMS journal for medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard setting is one of the most contentious topics in educational measurement. Commonly-used methods all have well reported limitations. To date, there is not conclusive evidence suggesting which standard setting method yields the highest validity.
methodsThe method described and piloted in this study asked expert judges to estimate the scores on a real MCQ examination that they consider indicated a clear pass, clear fail, and pass mark for the examination as a whole. The mean and SD of the judges responses to these estimates, Z scores and confidence intervals were used to derive the cut-score and the confidence in it.
resultsIn this example the new method's cut-score was higher than the judges' estimate. The method also yielded estimates of statistical error which determine the range of the acceptable cut-score and the estimated level of confidence one may have in the accuracy of that cut-score.
conclusionsThis new standard-setting method offers some advances, and possibly advantages, in that the decisions being asked of judges are based on firmer constructs, and it takes into account variation among judges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.