等Z标准设定法估计台湾医学院客观结构化临床检查小组成员最少人数:模拟研究

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Ying-Ying Yang, Pin-Hsiang Huang, Ling-Yu Yang, Chia-Chang Huang, Chih-Wei Liu, Shiau-Shian Huang, Chen-Huan Chen, Fa-Yauh Lee, Shou-Yen Kao, Boaz Shulruf
{"title":"等Z标准设定法估计台湾医学院客观结构化临床检查小组成员最少人数:模拟研究","authors":"Ying-Ying Yang,&nbsp;Pin-Hsiang Huang,&nbsp;Ling-Yu Yang,&nbsp;Chia-Chang Huang,&nbsp;Chih-Wei Liu,&nbsp;Shiau-Shian Huang,&nbsp;Chen-Huan Chen,&nbsp;Fa-Yauh Lee,&nbsp;Shou-Yen Kao,&nbsp;Boaz Shulruf","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Undertaking a standard-setting exercise is a common method for setting pass/fail cut scores for high-stakes examinations. The recently introduced equal Z standard-setting method (EZ method) has been found to be a valid and effective alternative for the commonly used Angoff and Hofstee methods and their variants. The current study aims to estimate the minimum number of panelists required for obtaining acceptable and reliable cut scores using the EZ method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary data were extracted from 31 panelists who used the EZ method for setting cut scores for a 12-station of medical school’s final objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in Taiwan. For this study, a new data set composed of 1,000 random samples of different panel sizes, ranging from 5 to 25 panelists, was established and analyzed. Analysis of variance was performed to measure the differences in the cut scores set by the sampled groups, across all sizes within each station.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, a panel of 10 experts or more yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 90% and 15 experts yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 95%. No significant differences in cut scores associated with panel size were identified for panels of 5 or more experts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The EZ method was found to be valid and feasible. Less than an hour was required for 12 panelists to assess 12 OSCE stations. Calculating the cut scores required only basic statistical skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"19 ","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9764018/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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 study\",\"authors\":\"Ying-Ying Yang,&nbsp;Pin-Hsiang Huang,&nbsp;Ling-Yu Yang,&nbsp;Chia-Chang Huang,&nbsp;Chih-Wei Liu,&nbsp;Shiau-Shian Huang,&nbsp;Chen-Huan Chen,&nbsp;Fa-Yauh Lee,&nbsp;Shou-Yen Kao,&nbsp;Boaz Shulruf\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.27\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Undertaking a standard-setting exercise is a common method for setting pass/fail cut scores for high-stakes examinations. The recently introduced equal Z standard-setting method (EZ method) has been found to be a valid and effective alternative for the commonly used Angoff and Hofstee methods and their variants. The current study aims to estimate the minimum number of panelists required for obtaining acceptable and reliable cut scores using the EZ method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary data were extracted from 31 panelists who used the EZ method for setting cut scores for a 12-station of medical school’s final objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in Taiwan. For this study, a new data set composed of 1,000 random samples of different panel sizes, ranging from 5 to 25 panelists, was established and analyzed. Analysis of variance was performed to measure the differences in the cut scores set by the sampled groups, across all sizes within each station.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, a panel of 10 experts or more yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 90% and 15 experts yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 95%. No significant differences in cut scores associated with panel size were identified for panels of 5 or more experts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The EZ method was found to be valid and feasible. Less than an hour was required for 12 panelists to assess 12 OSCE stations. Calculating the cut scores required only basic statistical skills.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9764018/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.27\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:进行标准设定练习是为高风险考试设定及格/不及格分数线的常用方法。最近引入的等Z标准制定法(EZ法)已被发现是一种有效的替代常用的Angoff和Hofstee方法及其变体。目前的研究旨在估计使用EZ方法获得可接受和可靠的切割分数所需的最小小组成员数量。方法:选取台湾一所12站医学院最终客观结构化临床检查(OSCE)的31位小组成员,使用EZ方法设定切割分数。在本研究中,我们建立并分析了一个新的数据集,该数据集由1000个不同面板大小的随机样本组成,范围从5到25个面板成员。进行方差分析以衡量抽样组在每个站点内所有规模的切割分数的差异。结果:平均而言,由10名或更多专家组成的小组得出的切分置信度大于或等于90%,15名专家得出的切分置信度大于或等于95%。对于5名或更多专家的小组,切割分数与小组大小没有显著差异。结论:EZ法是一种有效可行的方法。12名小组成员不到一小时就评估了欧安组织的12个站点。计算分数线只需要基本的统计技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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 study

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 study

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 study

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 study

Purpose: Undertaking a standard-setting exercise is a common method for setting pass/fail cut scores for high-stakes examinations. The recently introduced equal Z standard-setting method (EZ method) has been found to be a valid and effective alternative for the commonly used Angoff and Hofstee methods and their variants. The current study aims to estimate the minimum number of panelists required for obtaining acceptable and reliable cut scores using the EZ method.

Methods: The primary data were extracted from 31 panelists who used the EZ method for setting cut scores for a 12-station of medical school’s final objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in Taiwan. For this study, a new data set composed of 1,000 random samples of different panel sizes, ranging from 5 to 25 panelists, was established and analyzed. Analysis of variance was performed to measure the differences in the cut scores set by the sampled groups, across all sizes within each station.

Results: On average, a panel of 10 experts or more yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 90% and 15 experts yielded cut scores with confidence more than or equal to 95%. No significant differences in cut scores associated with panel size were identified for panels of 5 or more experts.

Conclusion: The EZ method was found to be valid and feasible. Less than an hour was required for 12 panelists to assess 12 OSCE stations. Calculating the cut scores required only basic statistical skills.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
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