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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18615294)

  • 1. Simpler standards for local performance examinations: the Yes/No Angoff and whole-test Ebel.
    Yudkowsky R; Downing SM; Wirth S
    Teach Learn Med; 2008; 20(3):212-7. PubMed ID: 18615294
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. The modified essay question: its exit from the exit examination?
    Palmer EJ; Duggan P; Devitt PG; Russell R
    Med Teach; 2010; 32(7):e300-7. PubMed ID: 20653373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The effect of incorporating normative data into a criterion-referenced standard setting in medical education.
    Cusimano MD; Rothman AI
    Acad Med; 2003 Oct; 78(10 Suppl):S88-90. PubMed ID: 14557106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Setting and maintaining standards in multiple choice examinations: Guide supplement 37.3--practical application.
    Hussein A; Abdelkhalek N; Hamdy H
    Med Teach; 2010; 32(7):610-2. PubMed ID: 20653387
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Comparison of standard-setting methods for the Korea Radiological technologist Licensing Examination : Angoff, Ebel, Bookmark, and Hofstee.
    Park J; Ahn DS; Yim MK; Lee J
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2018; 15():32. PubMed ID: 30586956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are national qualifying examinations a fair way to rank medical students? Yes.
    Ricketts C; Archer J
    BMJ; 2008 Aug; 337():a1282. PubMed ID: 18723557
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Test performance of a local examination at a nonlocal site for evaluation of surgical clerks.
    Dunnington G; Witzke D; Hassett J; Reisner L; Fulginiti J; Rubeck R
    Surgery; 1990 Aug; 108(2):236-9. PubMed ID: 2382223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Is that your final answer? Relationship of changed answers to overall performance on a computer-based medical school course examination.
    Ferguson KJ; Kreiter CD; Peterson MW; Rowat JA; Elliott ST
    Teach Learn Med; 2002; 14(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 11865744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Efficiently teaching mental status examination to medical students.
    Talley BJ; Littlefield J
    Med Educ; 2009 Nov; 43(11):1100-1. PubMed ID: 19799731
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.