168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30458741)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Developing a video-based method to compare and adjust examiner effects in fully nested OSCEs.
Yeates P; Cope N; Hawarden A; Bradshaw H; McCray G; Homer M
Med Educ; 2019 Mar; 53(3):250-263. PubMed ID: 30575092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Towards a more nuanced conceptualisation of differential examiner stringency in OSCEs.
Homer M
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2024 Jul; 29(3):919-934. PubMed ID: 37843678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Factor analysis can be a useful standard setting tool in a high stakes OSCE assessment.
Chesser AM; Laing MR; Miedzybrodzka ZH; Brittenden J; Heys SD
Med Educ; 2004 Aug; 38(8):825-31. PubMed ID: 15271042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Is There Variability in Scoring of Student Surgical OSCE Performance Based on Examiner Experience and Expertise?
Donohoe CL; Reilly F; Donnelly S; Cahill RA
J Surg Educ; 2020; 77(5):1202-1210. PubMed ID: 32336628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Objective Borderline method (OBM): a probability-based model for setting up an objective pass/fail cut-off score in medical programme assessments.
Shulruf B; Turner R; Poole P; Wilkinson T
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2013 May; 18(2):231-44. PubMed ID: 22484963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: an analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners membership examination's oral component.
Wass V; Wakeford R; Neighbour R; Van der Vleuten C;
Med Educ; 2003 Feb; 37(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 12558883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
