用是/否Angoff法代替百分比Angoff法估计韩国医师执照考试分数线的可能性:模拟研究

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Janghee Park
{"title":"用是/否Angoff法代替百分比Angoff法估计韩国医师执照考试分数线的可能性:模拟研究","authors":"Janghee Park","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The percent Angoff (PA) method has been recommended as a reliable method to set the cutoff score instead of a fixed cut point of 60% in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE). The yes/no Angoff (YNA) method, which is easy for panelists to judge, can be considered as an alternative because the KMLE has many items to evaluate. This study aimed to compare the cutoff score and the reliability depending on whether the PA or the YNA standard-setting method was used in the KMLE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The materials were the open-access PA data of the KMLE. The PA data were converted to YNA data in 5 categories, in which the probabilities for a “yes” decision by panelists were 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. SPSS for descriptive analysis and G-string for generalizability theory were used to present the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PA method and the YNA method counting 60% as “yes,” estimated similar cutoff scores. Those cutoff scores were deemed acceptable based on the results of the Hofstee method. The highest reliability coefficients estimated by the generalizability test were from the PA method and the YNA method, with probabilities of 70%, 80%, 60%, and 50% for deciding “yes,” in descending order. The panelist’s specialty was the main cause of the error variance. The error size was similar regardless of the standard-setting method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The above results showed that the PA method was more reliable than the YNA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE. However, the YNA method with a 60% probability for deciding “yes” also can be used as a substitute for the PA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"19 ","pages":"23"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10086388/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study\",\"authors\":\"Janghee Park\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The percent Angoff (PA) method has been recommended as a reliable method to set the cutoff score instead of a fixed cut point of 60% in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE). The yes/no Angoff (YNA) method, which is easy for panelists to judge, can be considered as an alternative because the KMLE has many items to evaluate. This study aimed to compare the cutoff score and the reliability depending on whether the PA or the YNA standard-setting method was used in the KMLE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The materials were the open-access PA data of the KMLE. The PA data were converted to YNA data in 5 categories, in which the probabilities for a “yes” decision by panelists were 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. SPSS for descriptive analysis and G-string for generalizability theory were used to present the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PA method and the YNA method counting 60% as “yes,” estimated similar cutoff scores. Those cutoff scores were deemed acceptable based on the results of the Hofstee method. The highest reliability coefficients estimated by the generalizability test were from the PA method and the YNA method, with probabilities of 70%, 80%, 60%, and 50% for deciding “yes,” in descending order. The panelist’s specialty was the main cause of the error variance. The error size was similar regardless of the standard-setting method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The above results showed that the PA method was more reliable than the YNA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE. However, the YNA method with a 60% probability for deciding “yes” also can be used as a substitute for the PA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10086388/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.23\",\"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.2022.19.23","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: 2

摘要

目的:在韩国医师执照考试(KMLE)中,百分数Angoff (PA)法被推荐为设定分数线的可靠方法,而不是固定的分数线60%。小组成员容易判断的是/否安戈夫(YNA)方法,可以考虑作为一种替代方法,因为KMLE有许多项目需要评估。本研究旨在比较在KMLE中是否使用PA或YNA标准制定方法的截止得分和信度。方法:材料为开放获取的KMLE PA数据。将PA数据转换为5类YNA数据,其中小组成员做出“是”决定的概率分别为50%、60%、70%、80%和90%。使用SPSS进行描述性分析,使用G-string进行概括性理论。结果:PA法和YNA法计算60%为“是”,估计的截止分数相似。根据霍夫斯蒂法的结果,这些分数线被认为是可以接受的。通化检验估计的最高信度系数来自PA方法和YNA方法,决定“是”的概率依次为70%,80%,60%和50%。小组成员的专业是误差差异的主要原因。无论采用何种标准制定方法,误差大小都是相似的。结论:PA法较YNA法对KMLE截止分的估计更可靠。然而,YNA法在判断“是”的概率为60%的情况下,也可以代替PA法来估计KMLE的截止分数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study

Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study

Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study

Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study

Purpose: The percent Angoff (PA) method has been recommended as a reliable method to set the cutoff score instead of a fixed cut point of 60% in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE). The yes/no Angoff (YNA) method, which is easy for panelists to judge, can be considered as an alternative because the KMLE has many items to evaluate. This study aimed to compare the cutoff score and the reliability depending on whether the PA or the YNA standard-setting method was used in the KMLE.

Methods: The materials were the open-access PA data of the KMLE. The PA data were converted to YNA data in 5 categories, in which the probabilities for a “yes” decision by panelists were 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. SPSS for descriptive analysis and G-string for generalizability theory were used to present the results.

Results: The PA method and the YNA method counting 60% as “yes,” estimated similar cutoff scores. Those cutoff scores were deemed acceptable based on the results of the Hofstee method. The highest reliability coefficients estimated by the generalizability test were from the PA method and the YNA method, with probabilities of 70%, 80%, 60%, and 50% for deciding “yes,” in descending order. The panelist’s specialty was the main cause of the error variance. The error size was similar regardless of the standard-setting method.

Conclusion: The above results showed that the PA method was more reliable than the YNA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE. However, the YNA method with a 60% probability for deciding “yes” also can be used as a substitute for the PA method in estimating the cutoff score of the KMLE.

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