Cargando…

An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities

BACKGROUND: Standard setting is one of the most challenging aspects of assessment in high-stakes healthcare settings. The Angoff methodology is widely used, but poses a number of challenges, including conceptualisation of the just-passing candidate, and the time-cost of implementing the method. Cohe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McLachlan, John C., Robertson, K. Alex, Weller, Bridget, Sawdon, Marina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02418-5
_version_ 1783632720088268800
author McLachlan, John C.
Robertson, K. Alex
Weller, Bridget
Sawdon, Marina
author_facet McLachlan, John C.
Robertson, K. Alex
Weller, Bridget
Sawdon, Marina
author_sort McLachlan, John C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Standard setting is one of the most challenging aspects of assessment in high-stakes healthcare settings. The Angoff methodology is widely used, but poses a number of challenges, including conceptualisation of the just-passing candidate, and the time-cost of implementing the method. Cohen methodologies are inexpensive and rapid but rely on the performance of an individual candidate. A new method of standard setting, based on the entire cohort and every item, would be valuable. METHODS: We identified Borderline candidates by reviewing their performance across all assessments in an academic year. We plotted the item scores of the Borderline candidates in comparison with Facility for the whole cohort and fitted curves to the resulting distribution. RESULTS: It is observed that for any given Item, an equation of the form y ≈ C. e(Fx) where y is the Facility of Borderline candidates on that Item, x is the observed Item Facility of the whole cohort, and C and F are constants, predicts the probable Facility for Borderline candidates over the test, in other words, the cut score for Borderline candidates. We describe ways of estimating C and F in any given circumstance, and suggest typical values arising from this particular study: that C = 12.3 and F = 0.021. CONCLUSIONS: C and F are relatively stable, and that the equation y = 12.3. e(0.021x) can rapidly be applied to the item Facility for every item. The average value represents the cut score for the assessment as a whole. This represents a novel retrospective method based on test takers. Compared to the Cohen method which draws on one score and one candidate, this method draws on all items and candidates in a test. We propose that it can be used to standard set a whole test, or a particular item where the predicted Angoff score is very different from the observed Facility.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7786895
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77868952021-01-07 An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities McLachlan, John C. Robertson, K. Alex Weller, Bridget Sawdon, Marina BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Standard setting is one of the most challenging aspects of assessment in high-stakes healthcare settings. The Angoff methodology is widely used, but poses a number of challenges, including conceptualisation of the just-passing candidate, and the time-cost of implementing the method. Cohen methodologies are inexpensive and rapid but rely on the performance of an individual candidate. A new method of standard setting, based on the entire cohort and every item, would be valuable. METHODS: We identified Borderline candidates by reviewing their performance across all assessments in an academic year. We plotted the item scores of the Borderline candidates in comparison with Facility for the whole cohort and fitted curves to the resulting distribution. RESULTS: It is observed that for any given Item, an equation of the form y ≈ C. e(Fx) where y is the Facility of Borderline candidates on that Item, x is the observed Item Facility of the whole cohort, and C and F are constants, predicts the probable Facility for Borderline candidates over the test, in other words, the cut score for Borderline candidates. We describe ways of estimating C and F in any given circumstance, and suggest typical values arising from this particular study: that C = 12.3 and F = 0.021. CONCLUSIONS: C and F are relatively stable, and that the equation y = 12.3. e(0.021x) can rapidly be applied to the item Facility for every item. The average value represents the cut score for the assessment as a whole. This represents a novel retrospective method based on test takers. Compared to the Cohen method which draws on one score and one candidate, this method draws on all items and candidates in a test. We propose that it can be used to standard set a whole test, or a particular item where the predicted Angoff score is very different from the observed Facility. BioMed Central 2021-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7786895/ /pubmed/33407365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02418-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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
McLachlan, John C.
Robertson, K. Alex
Weller, Bridget
Sawdon, Marina
An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
title An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
title_full An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
title_fullStr An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
title_full_unstemmed An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
title_short An inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
title_sort inexpensive retrospective standard setting method based on item facilities
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786895/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02418-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mclachlanjohnc aninexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT robertsonkalex aninexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT wellerbridget aninexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT sawdonmarina aninexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT mclachlanjohnc inexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT robertsonkalex inexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT wellerbridget inexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities
AT sawdonmarina inexpensiveretrospectivestandardsettingmethodbasedonitemfacilities