Cargando…

Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?

BACKGROUND: Standard setting for clinical examinations typically uses the borderline regression method to set the pass mark. An assumption made in using this method is that there are equal intervals between global ratings (GR) (e.g. Fail, Borderline Pass, Clear Pass, Good and Excellent). However, th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McGown, Patrick J., Brown, Celia A., Sebastian, Ann, Le, Ricardo, Amin, Anjali, Greenland, Andrew, Sam, Amir H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03753-5
_version_ 1784802901684649984
author McGown, Patrick J.
Brown, Celia A.
Sebastian, Ann
Le, Ricardo
Amin, Anjali
Greenland, Andrew
Sam, Amir H.
author_facet McGown, Patrick J.
Brown, Celia A.
Sebastian, Ann
Le, Ricardo
Amin, Anjali
Greenland, Andrew
Sam, Amir H.
author_sort McGown, Patrick J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Standard setting for clinical examinations typically uses the borderline regression method to set the pass mark. An assumption made in using this method is that there are equal intervals between global ratings (GR) (e.g. Fail, Borderline Pass, Clear Pass, Good and Excellent). However, this assumption has never been tested in the medical literature to the best of our knowledge. We examine if the assumption of equal intervals between GR is met, and the potential implications for student outcomes. METHODS: Clinical finals examiners were recruited across two institutions to place the typical ‘Borderline Pass’, ‘Clear Pass’ and ‘Good’ candidate on a continuous slider scale between a typical ‘Fail’ candidate at point 0 and a typical ‘Excellent’ candidate at point 1. Results were analysed using one-sample t-testing of each interval to an equal interval size of 0.25. Secondary data analysis was performed on summative assessment scores for 94 clinical stations and 1191 medical student examination outcomes in the final 2 years of study at a single centre. RESULTS: On a scale from 0.00 (Fail) to 1.00 (Excellent), mean examiner GRs for ‘Borderline Pass’, ‘Clear Pass’ and ‘Good’ were 0.33, 0.55 and 0.77 respectively. All of the four intervals between GRs (Fail-Borderline Pass, Borderline Pass-Clear Pass, Clear Pass-Good, Good-Excellent) were statistically significantly different to the expected value of 0.25 (all p-values < 0.0125). An ordinal linear regression using mean examiner GRs was performed for each of the 94 stations, to determine pass marks out of 24. This increased pass marks for all 94 stations compared with the original GR locations (mean increase 0.21), and caused one additional fail by overall exam pass mark (out of 1191 students) and 92 additional station fails (out of 11,346 stations). CONCLUSIONS: Although the current assumption of equal intervals between GRs across the performance spectrum is not met, and an adjusted regression equation causes an increase in station pass marks, the effect on overall exam pass/fail outcomes is modest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03753-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9536020
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95360202022-10-07 Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid? McGown, Patrick J. Brown, Celia A. Sebastian, Ann Le, Ricardo Amin, Anjali Greenland, Andrew Sam, Amir H. BMC Med Educ Research BACKGROUND: Standard setting for clinical examinations typically uses the borderline regression method to set the pass mark. An assumption made in using this method is that there are equal intervals between global ratings (GR) (e.g. Fail, Borderline Pass, Clear Pass, Good and Excellent). However, this assumption has never been tested in the medical literature to the best of our knowledge. We examine if the assumption of equal intervals between GR is met, and the potential implications for student outcomes. METHODS: Clinical finals examiners were recruited across two institutions to place the typical ‘Borderline Pass’, ‘Clear Pass’ and ‘Good’ candidate on a continuous slider scale between a typical ‘Fail’ candidate at point 0 and a typical ‘Excellent’ candidate at point 1. Results were analysed using one-sample t-testing of each interval to an equal interval size of 0.25. Secondary data analysis was performed on summative assessment scores for 94 clinical stations and 1191 medical student examination outcomes in the final 2 years of study at a single centre. RESULTS: On a scale from 0.00 (Fail) to 1.00 (Excellent), mean examiner GRs for ‘Borderline Pass’, ‘Clear Pass’ and ‘Good’ were 0.33, 0.55 and 0.77 respectively. All of the four intervals between GRs (Fail-Borderline Pass, Borderline Pass-Clear Pass, Clear Pass-Good, Good-Excellent) were statistically significantly different to the expected value of 0.25 (all p-values < 0.0125). An ordinal linear regression using mean examiner GRs was performed for each of the 94 stations, to determine pass marks out of 24. This increased pass marks for all 94 stations compared with the original GR locations (mean increase 0.21), and caused one additional fail by overall exam pass mark (out of 1191 students) and 92 additional station fails (out of 11,346 stations). CONCLUSIONS: Although the current assumption of equal intervals between GRs across the performance spectrum is not met, and an adjusted regression equation causes an increase in station pass marks, the effect on overall exam pass/fail outcomes is modest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03753-5. BioMed Central 2022-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9536020/ /pubmed/36199083 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03753-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
McGown, Patrick J.
Brown, Celia A.
Sebastian, Ann
Le, Ricardo
Amin, Anjali
Greenland, Andrew
Sam, Amir H.
Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
title Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
title_full Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
title_fullStr Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
title_full_unstemmed Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
title_short Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
title_sort is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9536020/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03753-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mcgownpatrickj istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid
AT brownceliaa istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid
AT sebastianann istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid
AT lericardo istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid
AT aminanjali istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid
AT greenlandandrew istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid
AT samamirh istheassumptionofequaldistancesbetweenglobalassessmentcategoriesusedinborderlineregressionvalid