These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10583792)

  • 21. The effect of incorporating normative data into a criterion-referenced standard setting in medical education.
    Cusimano MD; Rothman AI
    Acad Med; 2003 Oct; 78(10 Suppl):S88-90. PubMed ID: 14557106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Progress testing in undergraduate dental education: the Peninsula experience and future opportunities.
    Ali K; Coombes L; Kay E; Tredwin C; Jones G; Ricketts C; Bennett J
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2016 Aug; 20(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 25874344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Standard setting with dichotomous and constructed response items: some Rasch model approaches.
    MacCann RG
    J Appl Meas; 2009; 10(4):438-54. PubMed ID: 19934530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparing veterinary students' performance with cut-scores determined using a modified individual Angoff method featuring Bloom's taxonomy.
    Leask R; Cronje T; Holm DE; van Ryneveld L
    Vet Rec; 2020 Dec; 187(12):e121. PubMed ID: 33055287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Beyond Selection: The Use of Situational Judgement Tests in the Teaching and Assessment of Professionalism.
    Goss BD; Ryan AT; Waring J; Judd T; Chiavaroli NG; O'Brien RC; Trumble SC; McColl GJ
    Acad Med; 2017 Jun; 92(6):780-784. PubMed ID: 28557942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Setting standards for performance tests: a pilot study of a three-level Angoff method.
    Yudkowsky R; Downing SM; Popescu M
    Acad Med; 2008 Oct; 83(10 Suppl):S13-6. PubMed ID: 18820491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Simulation-based examinations in physician assistant education: A comparison of two standard-setting methods.
    Carlson J; Tomkowiak J; Knott P
    J Physician Assist Educ; 2010; 21(2):7-14. PubMed ID: 21141047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Simpler standards for local performance examinations: the Yes/No Angoff and whole-test Ebel.
    Yudkowsky R; Downing SM; Wirth S
    Teach Learn Med; 2008; 20(3):212-7. PubMed ID: 18615294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting.
    Shulruf B; Coombes L; Damodaran A; Freeman A; Jones P; Lieberman S; Poole P; Rhee J; Wilkinson T; Harris P
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Jun; 18(1):126. PubMed ID: 29879954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Standard setting of objective structured practical examination by modified Angoff method: A pilot study.
    Kamath MG; Pallath V; Ramnarayan K; Kamath A; Torke S; Gonsalves J
    Natl Med J India; 2016; 29(3):160-162. PubMed ID: 27808068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy?
    Prince KJ; Scherpbier AJ; van Mameren H; Drukker J; van der Vleuten CP
    Med Educ; 2005 Mar; 39(3):326-32. PubMed ID: 15733169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Group versus modified individual standard-setting on multiple-choice questions with the Angoff method for fourth-year medical students in the internal medicine clerkship.
    Senthong V; Chindaprasirt J; Sawanyawisuth K; Aekphachaisawat N; Chaowattanapanit S; Limpawattana P; Choonhakarn C; Sookprasert A
    Adv Med Educ Pract; 2013; 4():195-200. PubMed ID: 24101890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Relationships between Bloom's taxonomy, judges' estimation of item difficulty and psychometric properties of items from a progress test: a prospective observational study.
    Hamamoto Filho PT; Silva E; Ribeiro ZMT; Hafner MLMB; Cecilio-Fernandes D; Bicudo AM
    Sao Paulo Med J; 2020; 138(1):33-39. PubMed ID: 32321103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Similarity of the cut score in test sets with different item amounts using the modified Angoff, modified Ebel, and Hofstee standard-setting methods for the Korean Medical Licensing Examination.
    Park J; Yim MK; Kim NJ; Ahn DS; Kim YM
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2020; 17():28. PubMed ID: 33010798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Angoff Method of Setting Cut Scores for High-Stakes Testing: Foley Catheter Checkoff as an Exemplar.
    Kardong-Edgren S; Mulcock PM
    Nurse Educ; 2016; 41(2):80-2. PubMed ID: 26402909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Do baseline data influence standard setting for a clinical skills examination?
    Wayne DB; Barsuk JH; Cohen E; McGaghie WC
    Acad Med; 2007 Oct; 82(10 Suppl):S105-8. PubMed ID: 17895672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Setting standards in knowledge assessments: Comparing Ebel and Cohen via Rasch.
    Homer M; Darling JC
    Med Teach; 2016 Dec; 38(12):1267-1277. PubMed ID: 27650218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Setting defensible standards for cardiac auscultation skills in medical students.
    Wayne DB; Butter J; Cohen ER; McGaghie WC
    Acad Med; 2009 Oct; 84(10 Suppl):S94-6. PubMed ID: 19907398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study.
    Park J
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2022; 19():23. PubMed ID: 36045595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Competence in the musculoskeletal system: assessing the progression of knowledge through an undergraduate medical course.
    Basu S; Roberts C; Newble DI; Snaith M
    Med Educ; 2004 Dec; 38(12):1253-60. PubMed ID: 15566536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.