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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12709190)

  • 1. Setting standards on educational tests.
    Norcini JJ
    Med Educ; 2003 May; 37(5):464-9. PubMed ID: 12709190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sources of variation in performance on a shared OSCE station across four UK medical schools.
    Chesser A; Cameron H; Evans P; Cleland J; Boursicot K; Mires G
    Med Educ; 2009 Jun; 43(6):526-32. PubMed ID: 19493176
    [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. Setting and maintaining standards in multiple choice examinations: AMEE Guide No. 37.
    Bandaranayake RC
    Med Teach; 2008; 30(9-10):836-45. PubMed ID: 19117221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Standard setting for OSCEs: trial of borderline approach.
    Kilminster S; Roberts T
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2004; 9(3):201-9. PubMed ID: 15316271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Standard-setting plans for the NBME comprehensive Part I and Part II examinations.
    Nungester RJ; Dillon GF; Swanson DB; Orr NA; Powell RD
    Acad Med; 1991 Aug; 66(8):429-33. PubMed ID: 1883423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Exploring differences in individual and group judgements in standard setting.
    Yeates P; Cope N; Luksaite E; Hassell A; Dikomitis L
    Med Educ; 2019 Sep; 53(9):941-952. PubMed ID: 31264741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Description and impact of using a standard-setting method for determining pass/fail scores in a surgery clerkship.
    Schindler N; Corcoran J; DaRosa D
    Am J Surg; 2007 Feb; 193(2):252-7. PubMed ID: 17236857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Assessment of constituency opinion about NBME examination standards.
    Orr NA; Nungester RJ
    Acad Med; 1991 Aug; 66(8):465-70. PubMed ID: 1883431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. How to set standards on performance-based examinations: AMEE Guide No. 85.
    McKinley DW; Norcini JJ
    Med Teach; 2014 Feb; 36(2):97-110. PubMed ID: 24256050
    [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. 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]  

  • 15. Standard setting for progress tests: combining external and internal standards.
    Ricketts C; Freeman AC; Coombes LR
    Med Educ; 2009 Jun; 43(6):589-93. PubMed ID: 19493184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Problematizing the concept of the "borderline" group in performance assessments.
    Homer M; Pell G; Fuller R
    Med Teach; 2017 May; 39(5):469-475. PubMed ID: 28440718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of repeated use of objective structured clinical examination stations.
    Cohen R; Rothman AI; Ross J; Poldre P
    Acad Med; 1993 Oct; 68(10 Suppl):S73-5. PubMed ID: 8216640
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of two standard-setting approaches in high-stakes clinical performance assessment using generalizability theory.
    Richter Lagha RA; Boscardin CK; May W; Fung CC
    Acad Med; 2012 Aug; 87(8):1077-82. PubMed ID: 22722349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations.
    Talente G; Haist SA; Wilson JF
    Eval Health Prof; 2003 Dec; 26(4):427-46. PubMed ID: 14631613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Applying the Bookmark method to medical education: standard setting for an aseptic technique station.
    Lypson ML; Downing SM; Gruppen LD; Yudkowsky R
    Med Teach; 2013 Jul; 35(7):581-5. PubMed ID: 23597240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.