Cargando…

Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests

BACKGROUND: One of the main processes of determining the ability level at which a student should pass an assessment is standard setting. The current study aimed to compare the validity of Angoff and bookmark methods in standard-setting. METHOD: 190 individuals with an M.Sc. degree in laboratory scie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Yousefi Afrashteh, Majid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33388043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02436-3
_version_ 1783631196276654080
author Yousefi Afrashteh, Majid
author_facet Yousefi Afrashteh, Majid
author_sort Yousefi Afrashteh, Majid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: One of the main processes of determining the ability level at which a student should pass an assessment is standard setting. The current study aimed to compare the validity of Angoff and bookmark methods in standard-setting. METHOD: 190 individuals with an M.Sc. degree in laboratory science participated in the study. A test with 32 items, designed by a group of experts, was used to assess the laboratory skills of the participants. Moreover, two groups each containing 12 content specialists in laboratory sciences, voluntarily participated in the application of the Angoff and bookmark methods. To assess the process validity, a 5-item questionnaire was asked from two groups of panelists. To investigate the internal validity, the classification agreement was calculated using the kappa and Fleiss’s Kappa coefficient. External validity was assessed by using five indices (correlation with criterion score, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of correlation test with criterion score). RESULTS: The results showed that the obtained cut-scores was 17.67 for Angoff and 18.8 for bookmark. The average total of items related to the quality of the execution process was 4.25 for the Angoff group and 4.79 for the bookmark group. Pass rates pass rates percentages for the Angoff and bookmark group were 55.78 and 41.36, respectively. Correlations of passing/failing, between employer ratings and test scores were 0.69 and 0.88 for Angoff and bookmark methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, it can be concluded that the process and internal validities of the bookmark method were higher than the Angoff method. For evaluation of the external validity (concordance of the cut score with the criterion score), all five external validity indices supported the bookmark method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7778792
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77787922021-01-04 Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests Yousefi Afrashteh, Majid BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: One of the main processes of determining the ability level at which a student should pass an assessment is standard setting. The current study aimed to compare the validity of Angoff and bookmark methods in standard-setting. METHOD: 190 individuals with an M.Sc. degree in laboratory science participated in the study. A test with 32 items, designed by a group of experts, was used to assess the laboratory skills of the participants. Moreover, two groups each containing 12 content specialists in laboratory sciences, voluntarily participated in the application of the Angoff and bookmark methods. To assess the process validity, a 5-item questionnaire was asked from two groups of panelists. To investigate the internal validity, the classification agreement was calculated using the kappa and Fleiss’s Kappa coefficient. External validity was assessed by using five indices (correlation with criterion score, specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of correlation test with criterion score). RESULTS: The results showed that the obtained cut-scores was 17.67 for Angoff and 18.8 for bookmark. The average total of items related to the quality of the execution process was 4.25 for the Angoff group and 4.79 for the bookmark group. Pass rates pass rates percentages for the Angoff and bookmark group were 55.78 and 41.36, respectively. Correlations of passing/failing, between employer ratings and test scores were 0.69 and 0.88 for Angoff and bookmark methods, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, it can be concluded that the process and internal validities of the bookmark method were higher than the Angoff method. For evaluation of the external validity (concordance of the cut score with the criterion score), all five external validity indices supported the bookmark method. BioMed Central 2021-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7778792/ /pubmed/33388043 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02436-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yousefi Afrashteh, Majid
Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
title Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
title_full Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
title_fullStr Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
title_short Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
title_sort comparison of the validity of bookmark and angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33388043
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02436-3
work_keys_str_mv AT yousefiafrashtehmajid comparisonofthevalidityofbookmarkandangoffstandardsettingmethodsinmedicalperformancetests