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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34609352)

  • 1. Standard-Setting for Continuing Education Assessment of Select New Competencies.
    Thomas D; Abdalla A; McKeirnan K; Khalifa S
    J Contin Educ Health Prof; 2022 Jan; 42(1):e96-e98. PubMed ID: 34609352
    [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. 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]  

  • 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. 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. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Differences in expectations of passing standards in communication skills for pre-clinical and clinical medical students.
    Park YS; Kamin C; Son D; Kim G; Yudkowsky R
    Patient Educ Couns; 2019 Feb; 102(2):301-308. PubMed ID: 30245099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of Trainee Performance Data on Standard-Setting Judgments Using the Mastery Angoff Method.
    Prenner SB; McGaghie WC; Chuzi S; Cantey E; Didwania A; Barsuk JH
    J Grad Med Educ; 2018 Jun; 10(3):301-305. PubMed ID: 29946387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Ensuring global standards for medical graduates: a pilot study of international standard-setting.
    Stern DT; Ben-David MF; De Champlain A; Hodges B; Wojtczak A; Schwarz MR
    Med Teach; 2005 May; 27(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 16011943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.