What should the standard be for passing and mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health Test? A consensus study

Author:

Nsangi AllenORCID,Aranza Diana,Asimwe Roger,Munaabi-Babigumira Susan Kyomuhendo,Nantongo Judith,Nordheim Lena VictoriaORCID,Ochieng Robert,Oyuga Cyril,Uwimana Innocent,Dahlgren Astrid,Oxman Andrew

Abstract

ObjectiveMost health literacy measures rely on subjective self-assessment. The Critical Thinking about Health Test is an objective measure that includes two multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for each of the nine Informed Health Choices Key Concepts included in the educational resources for secondary schools. The objective of this study was to determine cut-off scores for passing (the border between having and not having a basic understanding and the ability to apply the nine concepts) and mastery (the border between having mastered and not having mastered them).DesignUsing a combination of two widely used methods: Angoff’s and Nedelsky’s, a panel judged the likelihood that an individual on the border of passing and another on the border of having mastered the concepts would answer each MCQ correctly. The cut-off scores were determined by summing up the probability of answering each MCQ correctly. Their independent assessments were summarised and discussed. A nominal group technique was used to reach a consensus.SettingThe study was conducted in secondary schools in East Africa.ParticipantsThe panel included eight individuals with 5 or more years’ experience in the following areas: evaluation of critical thinking interventions, curriculum development, teaching of lower secondary school and evidence-informed decision-making.ResultsThe panel agreed that for a passing score, students had to answer 9 of the 18 questions and for a mastery score, 14 out of 18 questions correctly.ConclusionThere was wide variation in the judgements made by individual panel members for many of the questions, but they quickly reached a consensus on the cut-off scores after discussions.

Funder

Norges Forskningsråd

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

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