医学院校毕业考试:边界法与霍夫斯蒂法之比较。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 PEDIATRICS
Marcelo R García Diéguez, Marta P Del Valle, Alejandro G Cragno
{"title":"医学院校毕业考试:边界法与霍夫斯蒂法之比较。","authors":"Marcelo R García Diéguez, Marta P Del Valle, Alejandro G Cragno","doi":"10.5546/aap.2025-10758.eng","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction. Setting the cut-off point in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) is a controversial aspect of assessment. In resource-limited settings, the Hofstee method requires additional tasks from other teachers outside the examination time. In contrast, the borderline group method is applied during the assessment, allowing for a more efficient use of time and resources. Objective. To compare the reliability of the borderline group and Hofstee methods applied in a graduation OSCE at an Argentine public university, providing local evidence to an internationally relevant debate. Population and methods. Cross-sectional study of 56 students in a 12-station OSCE. Two standardsetting methods were applied: borderline group (using observers during the exam) and Hofstee (electronic consultation with expert judges). Cut-off points, failure rates, and reliability (phi coefficient λ) were compared using generalizability theory. Results. The average score was 66.1 (SD 4.7). The cut-off point using the borderline group method was 54 (overall) with a reliability of 0.89 and no failures. The Hofstee method defined cut-off points of 60.7 (overall), with 3 and 1 students failing, respectively, and reliability of 0.68 and 0.82. Conclusions. Both methods show adequate reliability; however, they differ in their practical consequences, as the borderline group method was more lenient, generating a higher number of passing students.</p>","PeriodicalId":8338,"journal":{"name":"Archivos argentinos de pediatria","volume":" ","pages":"e202510758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examinations (OSCEs) for Medical School Graduation: A Comparison of the borderline and Hofstee methods.\",\"authors\":\"Marcelo R García Diéguez, Marta P Del Valle, Alejandro G Cragno\",\"doi\":\"10.5546/aap.2025-10758.eng\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Introduction. Setting the cut-off point in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) is a controversial aspect of assessment. In resource-limited settings, the Hofstee method requires additional tasks from other teachers outside the examination time. In contrast, the borderline group method is applied during the assessment, allowing for a more efficient use of time and resources. Objective. To compare the reliability of the borderline group and Hofstee methods applied in a graduation OSCE at an Argentine public university, providing local evidence to an internationally relevant debate. Population and methods. Cross-sectional study of 56 students in a 12-station OSCE. Two standardsetting methods were applied: borderline group (using observers during the exam) and Hofstee (electronic consultation with expert judges). Cut-off points, failure rates, and reliability (phi coefficient λ) were compared using generalizability theory. Results. The average score was 66.1 (SD 4.7). The cut-off point using the borderline group method was 54 (overall) with a reliability of 0.89 and no failures. The Hofstee method defined cut-off points of 60.7 (overall), with 3 and 1 students failing, respectively, and reliability of 0.68 and 0.82. Conclusions. Both methods show adequate reliability; however, they differ in their practical consequences, as the borderline group method was more lenient, generating a higher number of passing students.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archivos argentinos de pediatria\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e202510758\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archivos argentinos de pediatria\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2025-10758.eng\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos argentinos de pediatria","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2025-10758.eng","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍。在客观结构化临床检查(oses)中设定分界点是评估的一个有争议的方面。在资源有限的情况下,Hofstee方法需要其他老师在考试时间之外完成额外的任务。相比之下,在评估期间应用边界组方法,允许更有效地利用时间和资源。目标。为了比较边界群体和Hofstee方法在阿根廷一所公立大学欧安组织毕业典礼中的可靠性,为国际相关辩论提供当地证据。人口和方法。对欧安组织12个站点的56名学生的横断面研究。采用两种标准制定方法:borderline group(在考试期间使用观察员)和Hofstee(与专家评委进行电子咨询)。截止点、故障率和可靠性(phi系数λ)使用概括性理论进行比较。结果。平均得分为66.1分(SD 4.7)。边界组法的分界点为54(总体),可靠性为0.89,无失效。Hofstee方法定义的分界点为60.7(总体),分别有3名和1名学生不及格,信度为0.68和0.82。结论。两种方法均具有足够的可靠性;然而,他们在实际结果上有所不同,因为边缘组方法更宽松,产生了更多的合格学生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examinations (OSCEs) for Medical School Graduation: A Comparison of the borderline and Hofstee methods.

Introduction. Setting the cut-off point in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) is a controversial aspect of assessment. In resource-limited settings, the Hofstee method requires additional tasks from other teachers outside the examination time. In contrast, the borderline group method is applied during the assessment, allowing for a more efficient use of time and resources. Objective. To compare the reliability of the borderline group and Hofstee methods applied in a graduation OSCE at an Argentine public university, providing local evidence to an internationally relevant debate. Population and methods. Cross-sectional study of 56 students in a 12-station OSCE. Two standardsetting methods were applied: borderline group (using observers during the exam) and Hofstee (electronic consultation with expert judges). Cut-off points, failure rates, and reliability (phi coefficient λ) were compared using generalizability theory. Results. The average score was 66.1 (SD 4.7). The cut-off point using the borderline group method was 54 (overall) with a reliability of 0.89 and no failures. The Hofstee method defined cut-off points of 60.7 (overall), with 3 and 1 students failing, respectively, and reliability of 0.68 and 0.82. Conclusions. Both methods show adequate reliability; however, they differ in their practical consequences, as the borderline group method was more lenient, generating a higher number of passing students.

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
1.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
286
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Archivos Argentinos de Pediatría is the official publication of the Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría (SAP) and has been published without interruption since 1930. Its publication is bimonthly. Archivos Argentinos de Pediatría publishes articles related to perinatal, child and adolescent health and other relevant disciplines for the medical profession.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信