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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30586956)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Challenging the arbitrary cutoff score of 60%: Standard setting evidence from preclinical Operative Dentistry course.
    Yousef MK; Alshawwa L; Tekian A; Park YS
    Med Teach; 2017 Apr; 39(sup1):S75-S79. PubMed ID: 28120635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Reliability of a minimal competency score for an annual skills mastery assessment.
    Alston GL; Haltom WR
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2013 Dec; 77(10):211. PubMed ID: 24371335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Relevance of the test content of the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination to nursing job.
    Park IS; Suh YO; Park HS; Ahn SY; Kang SY; Kim KS
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2016; 13():23. PubMed ID: 27270986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.