Standard-Setting Methods for Assessment in a Post-Graduate Medical College

Author:

Oyeronke Ekekezie Oyenike1,Oyinlola Charles-Eromosele Titilope2,Adenike Olatona Foluke3,Nwabueze Aguwa Emmanuel4

Affiliation:

1. Department of Academic, Accreditation and Monitoring, National Post-Graduate Medical College of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria

2. Department of Training, Accreditation and Monitoring, National Post-Graduate Medical College of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria

3. Department of Community Health and Primary Care, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria

4. Department of Community Health, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

Abstract

Context: Standard-setting procedures assess candidates’ competence in an examination. Different standard-setting methods produce different pass scores, and no gold standard exists currently. The quality of the standard-setting process is critical in medical examinations where true competency needs to be determined for safe medical practice. Aims: This study assessed the standard-setting methods the college uses to determine the pass scores in the various parts of the fellowship examinations and compared these methods with the arbitrary 50% previously used. Settings and Design: A cross-sectional comparative study to assess the standard-setting methods adopted, which was applied to the September/October/November 2023 fellowship examinations. Methods: This was a total population survey involving the 16 faculties of the College. Secondary data from a compilation of approved results was used. Data Analysis: Descriptive and analytical statistics in Microsoft Excel program. Results: The methods for standard-setting adopted by the college were assessed, and their mean pass scores were analysed. The mean pass score for the primary multiple choice questions examinations was 46.7%, lower than the previously used arbitrary 50% mark, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The mean pass scores for the other examinations were higher than the previously used arbitrary 50% mark, but these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Implementation of the approved standard-setting methods can be improved with more training and retraining of faculties and examiners so that results that are consistent with their purpose, and that align well with other measures of competency can be produced.

Publisher

Medknow

Reference29 articles.

1. Standard setting in medical education: Fundamental concepts and emerging challenges;Mortaz Hejri;Med J Islam Repub Iran,2014

2. Challenging the arbitrary cutoff score of 60%: Standard setting evidence from preclinical operative dentistry course;Yousef;Med Teach,2017

3. Comparison of two standard setting methods in a medical student MCQ exam in internal medicine;Elfaki;Am J Med Med Sci,2015

4. Technical Report on the Standard Setting Exercise for the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part I,2015

5. Objective standard setting in educational assessment and decision making;Sondergeld;Educ Policy,2020

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3