ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2018
Effect of Trainee Performance Data on Standard-Setting Judgments Using the Mastery Angoff Method.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Angoff methods in standard setting in health professional education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Simulation-based Mastery Learning Improves Emergency Medicine Residents' Ability to Perform Temporary Transvenous Cardiac Pacing.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Setting a Minimum Passing Standard for the Uncertainty Communication Checklist Through Patient and Physician Engagement.Journal of graduate medical education · 2020Article
- The Effect of Judge Selection on Standard Setting Using the Mastery Angoff Method during Development of a Ventricular Assist Device Self-Care Curriculum.Clinical simulation in nursing · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMastery learning in health professions education requires learners to learn and undergo assessment until they demonstrate a high level of competence. Setting defensible standards is key to accurately assessing educational outcomes in mastery learning. The Mastery Angoff method was proposed recently to set a minimum passing standard (MPS) for mastery learning curricula. However, it is unknown whether prior knowledge of trainee performance affects judges' decisions about setting an MPS using the Mastery Angoff method.
objectiveWe sought to determine the effect of introducing baseline data about trainee performance on faculty judges' decisions about the Mastery Angoff MPS for a written examination.
methodsWe developed a mastery learning curriculum to train internal medicine residents and cardiology fellows about the correct interpretation of inpatient telemetry monitoring. All learners were required to meet or exceed an MPS on a 35-item written examination at the end of training. The MPS was set in 2017 by judges who used the item-based Mastery Angoff method without prior examinee performance information. The judges subsequently reevaluated the test items after receiving baseline data about trainee performance collected during pilot testing. Mastery Angoff MPSs with and without baseline performance data were compared.
resultsTwelve judges participated in the standard-setting exercise. The initial MPS was similar to the repeat MPS set after judges received trainee performance data (86.2% versus 86.9%,
conclusionsPrior knowledge about medical trainee performance data did not affect MPS as determined by the Mastery Angoff procedure.
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.