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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30522263)

  • 1. Comparison of results between modified-Angoff and bookmark methods for estimating cut score of the Korean medical licensing examination.
    Yim M
    Korean J Med Educ; 2018 Dec; 30(4):347-357. PubMed ID: 30522263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of the validity of bookmark and Angoff standard setting methods in medical performance tests.
    Yousefi Afrashteh M
    BMC Med Educ; 2021 Jan; 21(1):1. PubMed ID: 33388043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Possibility of independent use of the yes/no Angoff and Hofstee methods for the standard setting of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination written test: a descriptive study.
    Kim DH; Kang YJ; Park HK
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2022; 19():33. PubMed ID: 36503200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study.
    Park J
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2022; 19():23. PubMed ID: 36045595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Similarity of the cut score in test sets with different item amounts using the modified Angoff, modified Ebel, and Hofstee standard-setting methods for the Korean Medical Licensing Examination.
    Park J; Yim MK; Kim NJ; Ahn DS; Kim YM
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2020; 17():28. PubMed ID: 33010798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using the Angoff method to set a standard on mock exams for the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination.
    Yim MK; Shin S
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2020; 17():14. PubMed ID: 32316708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluating the cutoff score of the advanced practice nurse certification examination in Korea.
    Kang Y
    Nurse Educ Pract; 2022 Aug; 63():103407. PubMed ID: 35810675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Reconsidering the cut score of Korean National Medical Licensing Examination.
    Ahn DS; Ahn S
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2007; 4():1. PubMed ID: 19224002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Group versus modified individual standard-setting on multiple-choice questions with the Angoff method for fourth-year medical students in the internal medicine clerkship.
    Senthong V; Chindaprasirt J; Sawanyawisuth K; Aekphachaisawat N; Chaowattanapanit S; Limpawattana P; Choonhakarn C; Sookprasert A
    Adv Med Educ Pract; 2013; 4():195-200. PubMed ID: 24101890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Is an Angoff standard an indication of minimal competence of examinees or of judges?
    Verheggen MM; Muijtjens AM; Van Os J; Schuwirth LW
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2008 May; 13(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 17043915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.