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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16957872)

  • 1. Estimating the minimum number of judges required for test-centred standard setting on written assessments. do discussion and iteration have an influence?
    Fowell SL; Fewtrell R; McLaughlin PJ
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2008 Mar; 13(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 16957872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. 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. 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]  

  • 6. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Standard setting in a small scale OSCE: a comparison of the Modified Borderline-Group Method and the Borderline Regression Method.
    Wood TJ; Humphrey-Murto SM; Norman GR
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2006 May; 11(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 16729239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Convergence between cluster analysis and the Angoff method for setting minimum passing scores on credentialing examinations.
    Hess B; Subhiyah RG; Giordano C
    Eval Health Prof; 2007 Dec; 30(4):362-75. PubMed ID: 17986670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Are extended-matching multiple-choice items appropriate for a final test in medical education?
    Beullens J; Van Damme B; Jaspaert H; Janssen PJ
    Med Teach; 2002 Jul; 24(4):390-5. PubMed ID: 12193322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A plea for the proper use of criterion-referenced tests in medical assessment.
    Ricketts C
    Med Educ; 2009 Dec; 43(12):1141-6. PubMed ID: 19930504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Psychometric characteristics of simulation-based assessment in anaesthesia and accuracy of self-assessed scores.
    Weller JM; Robinson BJ; Jolly B; Watterson LM; Joseph M; Bajenov S; Haughton AJ; Larsen PD
    Anaesthesia; 2005 Mar; 60(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15710009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data.
    Downing SM
    Med Educ; 2004 Sep; 38(9):1006-12. PubMed ID: 15327684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.