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}
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.
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.