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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21141047)

  • 21. Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting.
    Shulruf B; Coombes L; Damodaran A; Freeman A; Jones P; Lieberman S; Poole P; Rhee J; Wilkinson T; Harris P
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Jun; 18(1):126. PubMed ID: 29879954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Evaluation of the McMahon Competence Assessment Instrument for Use with Midwifery Students During a Simulated Shoulder Dystocia.
    McMahon E; Jevitt C; Aronson B
    J Midwifery Womens Health; 2018 Mar; 63(2):221-226. PubMed ID: 29533504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Training less-experienced faculty improves reliability of skills assessment in cardiac surgery.
    Lou X; Lee R; Feins RH; Enter D; Hicks GL; Verrier ED; Fann JI
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2014 Dec; 148(6):2491-6.e1-2. PubMed ID: 25308119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comparing student self-assessments of global communication with trained faculty and standardized patient assessments.
    Pawluk SA; Zolezzi M; Rainkie D
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2018 Jun; 10(6):779-784. PubMed ID: 30025780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Reliability and Validity of National End of Rotation Examinations: An Update.
    Gietzen L; Roman C; Hegmann T
    J Physician Assist Educ; 2018 Jun; 29(2):86-88. PubMed ID: 29727430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Validating the standardized-patient assessment administered to medical students in the New York City Consortium.
    Swartz MH; Colliver JA; Bardes CL; Charon R; Fried ED; Moroff S
    Acad Med; 1997 Jul; 72(7):619-26. PubMed ID: 9236472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effect of rater training on reliability and accuracy of mini-CEX scores: a randomized, controlled trial.
    Cook DA; Dupras DM; Beckman TJ; Thomas KG; Pankratz VS
    J Gen Intern Med; 2009 Jan; 24(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 19002533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Assessment of patient communication skills during OSCE: examining effectiveness of a training program in minimizing inter-grader variability.
    Schwartzman E; Hsu DI; Law AV; Chung EP
    Patient Educ Couns; 2011 Jun; 83(3):472-7. PubMed ID: 21555198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Interrater Reliability of Standardized Actors Versus Nonactors in a Simulation Based Assessment of Interprofessional Collaboration.
    Dickter DN; Stielstra S; Lineberry M
    Simul Healthc; 2015 Aug; 10(4):249-55. PubMed ID: 26098494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. How well do faculty evaluate the interviewing skills of medical students?
    Kalet A; Earp JA; Kowlowitz V
    J Gen Intern Med; 1992; 7(5):499-505. PubMed ID: 1403205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Comparing veterinary students' performance with cut-scores determined using a modified individual Angoff method featuring Bloom's taxonomy.
    Leask R; Cronje T; Holm DE; van Ryneveld L
    Vet Rec; 2020 Dec; 187(12):e121. PubMed ID: 33055287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. A Comparison of Approaches for Mastery Learning Standard Setting.
    Barsuk JH; Cohen ER; Wayne DB; McGaghie WC; Yudkowsky R
    Acad Med; 2018 Jul; 93(7):1079-1084. PubMed ID: 29465449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Setting standards and defining quality of performance in the validation of a standardized-patient examination format.
    Rosebraugh CJ; Speer AJ; Solomon DJ; Szauter KE; Ainsworth MA; Holden MD; Lieberman SA; Clyburn EB
    Acad Med; 1997 Nov; 72(11):1012-4. PubMed ID: 9387828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparing the cut score for the borderline group method and borderline regression method with norm-referenced standard setting in an objective structured clinical examination in medical school in Korea.
    Park SY; Lee SH; Kim MJ; Ji KH; Ryu JH
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2021; 18():25. PubMed ID: 34565121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Inter-rater Agreement on Final Competency Testing Utilizing Standardized Patients.
    Bowman DH; Ferber KL; Sima AP
    J Allied Health; 2016; 45(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 26937875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Dual Process Clinical Reasoning Assessment: Quantifying the Qualitative.
    Sisson CB; Waynick J; Gillette C
    J Physician Assist Educ; 2022 Jun; 33(2):127-130. PubMed ID: 35616690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.