标准设定：在小规模客观结构化临床考试中病例作者法与改良边缘组法的比较
Standard setting: a comparison of case-author and modified borderline-group methods in a small-scale OSCE.
作者信息
Humphrey-Murto Susan, MacFadyen John C
机构信息
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
出版信息
Acad Med. 2002 Jul;77(7):729-32. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200207000-00019.
PURPOSE
To compare cut scores resulting from the case-author method and the modified borderline-group method (MBG) of standard setting in an undergraduate objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and to review the feasibility of using the MBG method of standard setting in a small-scale OSCE.
METHOD
Sixty-one fourth-year medical students underwent a ten-station OSCE examination. For the eight stations used in this study, cut scores were established using the case-author and MBG methods. Cut scores and pass rates were compared for individual stations and the entire exam.
RESULTS
The case-author and MBG methods of standard setting produced different cut scores for the entire examination (5.77 and 5.31, respectively) and for each station individually. The percentage of students failing the examination based on the case-author cut score was 42.2%, and based on the MBG cut score it was 15.25%.
CONCLUSIONS
The case-author and MBG methods of standard setting produced different cut scores in an undergraduate OSCE. Overall, the MBG method was the more credible and defensible method of standard setting, and appeared well suited to a small-scale OSCE.
目的
比较本科客观结构化临床考试（OSCE）中案例作者法和改良临界组法（MBG）设定标准所产生的及格分数，并评估在小规模OSCE中使用MBG法设定标准的可行性。
方法
61名四年级医学生参加了一场包含10个站点的OSCE考试。对于本研究中使用的8个站点，采用案例作者法和MBG法确定及格分数。比较了各个站点以及整个考试的及格分数和通过率。
结果
案例作者法和MBG法在整个考试（分别为5.77和5.31）以及各个站点单独设定的及格分数有所不同。基于案例作者法及格分数未能通过考试的学生比例为42.2%，基于MBG法及格分数未能通过考试的学生比例为15.25%。
结论
案例作者法和MBG法在本科OSCE中产生了不同的及格分数。总体而言，MBG法是更可靠且更具合理性的标准设定方法，并且似乎非常适合小规模的OSCE。
Zotero 插件