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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29304806)

  • 1. Enhancing the defensibility of examiners' marks in high stake OSCEs.
    Shulruf B; Damodaran A; Jones P; Kennedy S; Mangos G; O'Sullivan AJ; Rhee J; Taylor S; Velan G; Harris P
    BMC Med Educ; 2018 Jan; 18(1):10. PubMed ID: 29304806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The practical value of the standard error of measurement in borderline pass/fail decisions.
    Hays R; Gupta TS; Veitch J
    Med Educ; 2008 Aug; 42(8):810-5. PubMed ID: 18564094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Examiners' decision-making processes in observation-based clinical examinations.
    Malau-Aduli BS; Hays RB; D'Souza K; Smith AM; Jones K; Turner R; Shires L; Smith J; Saad S; Richmond C; Celenza A; Sen Gupta T
    Med Educ; 2021 Mar; 55(3):344-353. PubMed ID: 32810334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Objectivity in subjectivity: do students' self and peer assessments correlate with examiners' subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study.
    Inayah AT; Anwer LA; Shareef MA; Nurhussen A; Alkabbani HM; Alzahrani AA; Obad AS; Zafar M; Afsar NA
    BMJ Open; 2017 May; 7(5):e012289. PubMed ID: 28487454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Problematizing the concept of the "borderline" group in performance assessments.
    Homer M; Pell G; Fuller R
    Med Teach; 2017 May; 39(5):469-475. PubMed ID: 28440718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment: an observational study into opinions and attitudes.
    Thomson FC; MacKenzie RK; Anderson M; Denison AR; Currie GP
    BMC Med Educ; 2017 Nov; 17(1):214. PubMed ID: 29141624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?
    McGown PJ; Brown CA; Sebastian A; Le R; Amin A; Greenland A; Sam AH
    BMC Med Educ; 2022 Oct; 22(1):708. PubMed ID: 36199083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Pass/fail decisions and standards: the impact of differential examiner stringency on OSCE outcomes.
    Homer M
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2022 May; 27(2):457-473. PubMed ID: 35230590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Order effects in high stakes undergraduate examinations: an analysis of 5 years of administrative data in one UK medical school.
    Burt J; Abel G; Barclay M; Evans R; Benson J; Gurnell M
    BMJ Open; 2016 Oct; 6(10):e012541. PubMed ID: 27729351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incorporating patients' assessments into objective structured clinical examinations.
    Kilminster S; Roberts T; Morris P
    Educ Health (Abingdon); 2007 May; 20(1):6. PubMed ID: 17647174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The consistency and uncertainty in examiners' definitions of pass/fail performance on OSCE (objective structured clinical examination) stations.
    Rothman AI; Blackmore D; Cohen R; Reznick R
    Eval Health Prof; 1996 Mar; 19(1):118-24. PubMed ID: 10186899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An empirical study of the predictive validity of number grades in medical school using 3 decades of longitudinal data: implications for a grading system.
    Gonnella JS; Erdmann JB; Hojat M
    Med Educ; 2004 Apr; 38(4):425-34. PubMed ID: 15025644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of pass/fail grading and weekly quizzes on first-year students' performances and satisfaction.
    Robins LS; Fantone JC; Oh MS; Alexander GL; Shlafer M; Davis WK
    Acad Med; 1995 Apr; 70(4):327-9. PubMed ID: 7718068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The impact of the inclusion of simulated patient ratings on the reliability of OSCE assessments under the borderline regression method.
    Homer M; Pell G
    Med Teach; 2009 May; 31(5):420-5. PubMed ID: 19142798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The observed long-case in clinical assessment.
    Newble DI
    Med Educ; 1991 Sep; 25(5):369-73. PubMed ID: 1758312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.