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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33792052)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. Implementation of standard setting for high-stakes objective structured clinical examinations.
    Taylor J; Curtis SD; St Onge E; Egelund EF; Venugopalan V; Whalen K
    Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2024 Jun; 16(6):465-468. PubMed ID: 38582641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Are we passing the acceptable? Standard setting of theoretical proficiency tests for foreign-trained dentists.
    Dalum J; Christidis N; Myrberg IH; Karlgren K; Leanderson C; Englund GS
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2023 Aug; 27(3):640-649. PubMed ID: 36039793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.