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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |