Standard-Setting Methods for Assessment in a Post-Graduate Medical College.

IF 0.8 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-02 DOI:10.4103/npmj.npmj_72_24
Ekekezie Oyenike Oyeronke, Charles-Eromosele Titilope Oyinlola, Olatona Foluke Adenike, Aguwa Emmanuel Nwabueze
{"title":"Standard-Setting Methods for Assessment in a Post-Graduate Medical College.","authors":"Ekekezie Oyenike Oyeronke, Charles-Eromosele Titilope Oyinlola, Olatona Foluke Adenike, Aguwa Emmanuel Nwabueze","doi":"10.4103/npmj.npmj_72_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Standard-setting procedures assess candidates' competence in an examination. Different standard-setting methods produce different pass scores, and no gold standard exists currently. The quality of the standard-setting process is critical in medical examinations where true competency needs to be determined for safe medical practice.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study assessed the standard-setting methods the college uses to determine the pass scores in the various parts of the fellowship examinations and compared these methods with the arbitrary 50% previously used.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>A cross-sectional comparative study to assess the standard-setting methods adopted, which was applied to the September/October/November 2023 fellowship examinations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a total population survey involving the 16 faculties of the College. Secondary data from a compilation of approved results was used.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>Descriptive and analytical statistics in Microsoft Excel program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The methods for standard-setting adopted by the college were assessed, and their mean pass scores were analysed. The mean pass score for the primary multiple choice questions examinations was 46.7%, lower than the previously used arbitrary 50% mark, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean pass scores for the other examinations were higher than the previously used arbitrary 50% mark, but these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implementation of the approved standard-setting methods can be improved with more training and retraining of faculties and examiners so that results that are consistent with their purpose, and that align well with other measures of competency can be produced.</p>","PeriodicalId":19720,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/npmj.npmj_72_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Standard-setting procedures assess candidates' competence in an examination. Different standard-setting methods produce different pass scores, and no gold standard exists currently. The quality of the standard-setting process is critical in medical examinations where true competency needs to be determined for safe medical practice.

Aims: This study assessed the standard-setting methods the college uses to determine the pass scores in the various parts of the fellowship examinations and compared these methods with the arbitrary 50% previously used.

Settings and design: A cross-sectional comparative study to assess the standard-setting methods adopted, which was applied to the September/October/November 2023 fellowship examinations.

Methods: This was a total population survey involving the 16 faculties of the College. Secondary data from a compilation of approved results was used.

Data analysis: Descriptive and analytical statistics in Microsoft Excel program.

Results: The methods for standard-setting adopted by the college were assessed, and their mean pass scores were analysed. The mean pass score for the primary multiple choice questions examinations was 46.7%, lower than the previously used arbitrary 50% mark, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean pass scores for the other examinations were higher than the previously used arbitrary 50% mark, but these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Implementation of the approved standard-setting methods can be improved with more training and retraining of faculties and examiners so that results that are consistent with their purpose, and that align well with other measures of competency can be produced.

医学院研究生院评估标准制定方法。
背景:标准制定程序评估考生的考试能力。不同的标准制定方法会产生不同的及格分数,目前还没有黄金标准。目的:本研究评估了学院用于确定研究员考试各部分及格分数的标准设定方法,并将这些方法与之前使用的任意 50%的标准设定方法进行了比较:这是一项横向比较研究,旨在评估所采用的标准设定方法,该方法适用于2023年9月/10月/11月的研究金考试:这是一项涉及学院 16 个系的总体调查。数据分析:数据分析:使用 Microsoft Excel 程序进行描述性和分析性统计:结果:对学院采用的标准制定方法进行了评估,并对其平均合格分数进行了分析。初级选择题考试的平均及格率为 46.7%,低于以前使用的 50%的任意分数线,这一差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。其他考试的平均及格分数高于以前使用的任意 50%分数线,但这些差异在统计学上并不显著(P > 0.05):结论:通过对教师和考官进行更多培训和再培训,可以改进已获批准的标准制定方法的实施,从而得出符合其目的并与其他能力衡量标准相一致的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal
Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信