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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12558884)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The passing score in the objective structured clinical examination.
    Morrison H; McNally H; Wylie C; McFaul P; Thompson W
    Med Educ; 1996 Sep; 30(5):345-8. PubMed ID: 8949473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using borderline methods to compare passing standards for OSCEs at graduation across three medical schools.
    Boursicot KA; Roberts TE; Pell G
    Med Educ; 2007 Nov; 41(11):1024-31. PubMed ID: 17973762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School.
    Dwivedi NR; Vijayashankar NP; Hansda M; Dubey AK; Nwachukwu F; Curran V; Jillwin J
    J Med Educ Curric Dev; 2020; 7():2382120520981992. PubMed ID: 33447662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Implementation of standard setting for high-stakes objective structured clinical examinations.
    Taylor J; Curtis SD; St Onge E; Egelund EF; Venugopalan V; Whalen K
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2024 Jun; 16(6):465-468. PubMed ID: 38582641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of standard-setting procedures for an OSCE in undergraduate medical education.
    Kaufman DM; Mann KV; Muijtjens AM; van der Vleuten CP
    Acad Med; 2000 Mar; 75(3):267-71. PubMed ID: 10724316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Standard Setting Methods for Pass/Fail Decisions on High-Stakes Objective Structured Clinical Examinations: A Validity Study.
    Yousuf N; Violato C; Zuberi RW
    Teach Learn Med; 2015; 27(3):280-91. PubMed ID: 26158330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Competency-based Standard Setting for a High-stakes Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): Validity Evidence.
    Lee M; Hernandez E; Brook R; Ha E; Harris C; Plesa M; Kahn D
    MedEdPublish (2016); 2018; 7():200. PubMed ID: 38074586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Setting standards for an objective structured clinical examination: the borderline group method gains ground on Angoff.
    Smee SM; Blackmore DE
    Med Educ; 2001 Nov; 35(11):1009-10. PubMed ID: 11703635
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Standard setting for clinical competence at graduation from medical school: a comparison of passing scores across five medical schools.
    Boursicot KA; Roberts TE; Pell G
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2006 May; 11(2):173-83. PubMed ID: 16729244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Standard setting: a comparison of case-author and modified borderline-group methods in a small-scale OSCE.
    Humphrey-Murto S; MacFadyen JC
    Acad Med; 2002 Jul; 77(7):729-32. PubMed ID: 12114151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.