Abstract
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Education,General Medicine
Reference42 articles.
1. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O, Shavelson RJ, Pant HA. Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education. Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation Higher Education; 2018. p. 686–98.
2. Hejri SM, Jalili M. Standard setting in medical education: fundamental concepts and emerging challenges. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:34.
3. Aviso KB, Lucas RI, Tapia JF, Promentilla MA, Tan RR. Identifying key factors to learning process systems engineering and process integration through DEMATEL. Chem Eng Trans. 2018;70:265–70.
4. Çetin S, Gelbal S. A comparison of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 2013;13(4):2169–75.
5. Kane M. Validating the performance standards associated with passing scores. Rev Educ Res. 1994;64:425–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170678.
Cited by
31 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献