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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16972990)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Comparison of results between modified-Angoff and bookmark methods for estimating cut score of the Korean medical licensing examination.
    Yim M
    Korean J Med Educ; 2018 Dec; 30(4):347-357. PubMed ID: 30522263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.