Standard setting: Comparison of two methods

dc.creator	Oyebode Femi
dc.creator	Haque M Sayeed
dc.creator	George Sanju
dc.date	2006-09-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-08-12T11:22:12Z
dc.date.available	2015-08-12T11:22:12Z
dc.identifier	10.1186/1472-6920-6-46
dc.identifier	1472-6920
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/8ccc84e433fc4772b2a1a78b7b74e1b6
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/29341
dc.description	<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The outcome of assessments is determined by the standard-setting method used. There is a wide range of standard – setting methods and the two used most extensively in undergraduate medical education in the UK are the norm-reference and the criterion-reference methods. The aims of the study were to compare these two standard-setting methods for a multiple-choice question examination and to estimate the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The norm – reference method of standard -setting (mean minus 1 SD) was applied to the 'raw' scores of 78 4th-year medical students on a multiple-choice examination (MCQ). Two panels of raters also set the standard using the modified Angoff method for the same multiple-choice question paper on two occasions (6 months apart). We compared the pass/fail rates derived from the norm reference and the Angoff methods and also assessed the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The pass rate with the norm-reference method was 85% (66/78) and that by the Angoff method was 100% (78 out of 78). The percentage agreement between Angoff method and norm-reference was 78% (95% CI 69% – 87%). The modified Angoff method had an inter-rater reliability of 0.81 – 0.82 and a test-retest reliability of 0.59–0.74.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There were significant differences in the outcomes of these two standard-setting methods, as shown by the difference in the proportion of candidates that passed and failed the assessment. The modified Angoff method was found to have good inter-rater reliability and moderate test-retest reliability.</p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	BioMed Central
dc.relation	http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/46
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6920
dc.rights	CC BY
dc.source	BMC Medical Education, Vol 6, Iss 1, p 46 (2006)
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	Standard setting: Comparison of two methods
dc.type	article