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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

174 related items for PubMed ID: 21141047

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Evaluating Medical Spanish Proficiency: A Comparison of Physician Assistant Student Self-Assessment to Standardized Patient and Expert Faculty Member Ratings.
    Lie DA, Forest CP, Richter-Lagha R.
    J Physician Assist Educ; 2018 Sep; 29(3):162-166. PubMed ID: 30086122
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Standard setting: comparison of two methods.
    George S, Haque MS, Oyebode F.
    BMC Med Educ; 2006 Sep 14; 6():46. PubMed ID: 16972990
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Standard setting made easy: validating the Equal Z-score (EZ) method for setting cut-score for clinical examinations.
    Shulruf B, Yang YY, Huang PH, Yang LY, Huang CC, Huang CC, Liu CW, Huang SS, Chen CH, Lee FY, Kao SY.
    BMC Med Educ; 2020 May 25; 20(1):167. PubMed ID: 32450878
    [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 04; 16():1. PubMed ID: 26727954
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Setting standards for performance tests: a pilot study of a three-level Angoff method.
    Yudkowsky R, Downing SM, Popescu M.
    Acad Med; 2008 Oct 04; 83(10 Suppl):S13-6. PubMed ID: 18820491
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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 04; 85(7):1210-1216. PubMed ID: 33792052
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 04; 102(2):301-308. PubMed ID: 30245099
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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 04; 13(3):162-71. PubMed ID: 19630935
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. A model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations.
    Talente G, Haist SA, Wilson JF.
    Eval Health Prof; 2003 Dec 04; 26(4):427-46. PubMed ID: 14631613
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 Dec 04; 15():32. PubMed ID: 30586956
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 04; 37(2):132-9. PubMed ID: 12558884
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Reliability of a minimal competency score for an annual skills mastery assessment.
    Alston GL, Haltom WR.
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2013 Dec 16; 77(10):211. PubMed ID: 24371335
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Inter-rater reliability and generalizability of patient note scores using a scoring rubric based on the USMLE Step-2 CS format.
    Park YS, Hyderi A, Bordage G, Xing K, Yudkowsky R.
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2016 Oct 16; 21(4):761-73. PubMed ID: 26757931
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 Oct 16; 17():14. PubMed ID: 32316708
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Innovative Features of the First Physician Assistant Examinations.
    Piemme TE, Andrew BJ.
    J Physician Assist Educ; 2017 Oct 16; 28 Suppl 1():S24-S27. PubMed ID: 28961618
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Assessing musculoskeletal examination skills and diagnostic reasoning of 4th year medical students using a novel objective structured clinical exam.
    Stansfield RB, Diponio L, Craig C, Zeller J, Chadd E, Miller J, Monrad S.
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Oct 14; 16(1):268. PubMed ID: 27741946
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Do baseline data influence standard setting for a clinical skills examination?
    Wayne DB, Barsuk JH, Cohen E, McGaghie WC.
    Acad Med; 2007 Oct 14; 82(10 Suppl):S105-8. PubMed ID: 17895672
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. 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 14; 27(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 16011943
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.