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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22122428)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A comparison of standard-setting procedures for an OSCE in undergraduate medical education.
    Kaufman DM; Mann KV; Muijtjens AM; van der Vleuten CP
    Acad Med; 2000 Mar; 75(3):267-71. PubMed ID: 10724316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Standard setting in an objective structured clinical examination: use of global ratings of borderline performance to determine the passing score.
    Wilkinson TJ; Newble DI; Frampton CM
    Med Educ; 2001 Nov; 35(11):1043-9. PubMed ID: 11703640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Standard setting made easy: validating the Equal Z-score (EZ) method for setting cut-score for clinical examinations.
    Shulruf B; Yang YY; Huang PH; Yang LY; Huang CC; Huang CC; Liu CW; Huang SS; Chen CH; Lee FY; Kao SY
    BMC Med Educ; 2020 May; 20(1):167. PubMed ID: 32450878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Borderline grades in high stakes clinical examinations: resolving examiner uncertainty.
    Shulruf B; Adelstein BA; Damodaran A; Harris P; Kennedy S; O'Sullivan A; Taylor S
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Nov; 18(1):272. PubMed ID: 30458741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Predictive validity of a tool to resolve borderline grades in OSCEs.
    Klein Nulend R; Harris P; Shulruf B
    GMS J Med Educ; 2020; 37(3):Doc31. PubMed ID: 32566733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.