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 *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12354249)

  • 1. Panel expertise for an Angoff standard setting procedure in progress testing: item writers compared to recently graduated students.
    Verhoeven BH; Verwijnen GM; Muijtjens AM; Scherpbier AJ; van der Vleuten CP
    Med Educ; 2002 Sep; 36(9):860-7. PubMed ID: 12354249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability and credibility of an angoff standard setting procedure in progress testing using recent graduates as judges.
    Verhoeven BH; van der Steeg AF; Scherpbier AJ; Muijtjens AM; Verwijnen GM; van der Vleuten CP
    Med Educ; 1999 Nov; 33(11):832-7. PubMed ID: 10583792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Is an Angoff standard an indication of minimal competence of examinees or of judges?
    Verheggen MM; Muijtjens AM; Van Os J; Schuwirth LW
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2008 May; 13(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 17043915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of two methods of standard setting: the performance of the three-level Angoff method.
    Jalili M; Hejri SM; Norcini JJ
    Med Educ; 2011 Dec; 45(12):1199-208. PubMed ID: 22122428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How to set the bar in competency-based medical education: standard setting after an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).
    Dwyer T; Wright S; Kulasegaram KM; Theodoropoulos J; Chahal J; Wasserstein D; Ringsted C; Hodges B; Ogilvie-Harris D
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Jan; 16():1. PubMed ID: 26727954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Differences in expectations of passing standards in communication skills for pre-clinical and clinical medical students.
    Park YS; Kamin C; Son D; Kim G; Yudkowsky R
    Patient Educ Couns; 2019 Feb; 102(2):301-308. PubMed ID: 30245099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Who will pass the dental OSCE? Comparison of the Angoff and the borderline regression standard setting methods.
    Schoonheim-Klein M; Muijtjens A; Habets L; Manogue M; van der Vleuten C; van der Velden U
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2009 Aug; 13(3):162-71. PubMed ID: 19630935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Insights into the Angoff method: results from a simulation study.
    Shulruf B; Wilkinson T; Weller J; Jones P; Poole P
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 May; 16():134. PubMed ID: 27142788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of a rational and an empirical standard setting procedure for an OSCE. Objective structured clinical examinations.
    Kramer A; Muijtjens A; Jansen K; Düsman H; Tan L; van der Vleuten C
    Med Educ; 2003 Feb; 37(2):132-9. PubMed ID: 12558884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of Trainee Performance Data on Standard-Setting Judgments Using the Mastery Angoff Method.
    Prenner SB; McGaghie WC; Chuzi S; Cantey E; Didwania A; Barsuk JH
    J Grad Med Educ; 2018 Jun; 10(3):301-305. PubMed ID: 29946387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Standard setting: comparison of two methods.
    George S; Haque MS; Oyebode F
    BMC Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 6():46. PubMed ID: 16972990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Variation in passing standards for graduation-level knowledge items at UK medical schools.
    Taylor CA; Gurnell M; Melville CR; Kluth DC; Johnson N; Wass V
    Med Educ; 2017 Jun; 51(6):612-620. PubMed ID: 28295495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A comparison of different standard-setting methods for professional qualifying dental examination.
    Abd-Rahman ANA; Baharuddin IH; Abu-Hassan MI; Davies SJ
    J Dent Educ; 2021 Jul; 85(7):1210-1216. PubMed ID: 33792052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Effect of Rating Unfamiliar Items on Angoff Passing Scores.
    Clauser JC; Hambleton RK; Baldwin P
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2017 Dec; 77(6):901-916. PubMed ID: 29795938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.