两种高级心脏生命支持培训标准设定方法的比较。
Comparison of two standard-setting methods for advanced cardiac life support training.
作者信息
Wayne Diane B, Fudala Monica J, Butter John, Siddall Viva J, Feinglass Joe, Wade Leonard D, McGaghie William C
机构信息
MD, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter 3-150, 251 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
出版信息
Acad Med. 2005 Oct;80(10 Suppl):S63-6. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200510001-00018.
BACKGROUND
This study used the Angoff and Hofstee standard-setting methods to derive minimum passing scores for six advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) procedures.
METHOD
An expert panel provided item-based (Angoff) and group-based (Hofstee) judgments about six ACLS performance checklists on two occasions separated by ten weeks. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) of the judgments were calculated. Derived ACLS passing standards are compared to historical ACLS performance data from two groups of ACLS-trained internal medicine residents.
RESULTS
Both the Angoff and Hofstee standard-setting methods produced reliable and stable data. Hofstee minimum passing scores (MPSs) were uniformly more stringent than Angoff MPSs. Interpretation of historical ACLS performance data from medical residents shows the MPSs derived in this study would yield higher-than-expected failure rates.
CONCLUSION
Systematic standard setting for ACLS procedures is a necessary step toward the creation of mastery learning educational programs.
背景
本研究采用安格夫法和霍夫斯泰法两种标准设定方法，得出六项高级心脏生命支持（ACLS）程序的最低及格分数。
方法
一个专家小组在相隔十周的两个时间段，针对六项ACLS操作检查表给出基于项目（安格夫法）和基于小组（霍夫斯泰法）的判断。计算这些判断的评分者间信度和重测信度（稳定性）。将得出的ACLS及格标准与两组接受过ACLS培训的内科住院医师的历史ACLS操作数据进行比较。
结果
安格夫法和霍夫斯泰法两种标准设定方法均产生了可靠且稳定的数据。霍夫斯泰法的最低及格分数（MPS）始终比安格夫法的MPS更为严格。对内科住院医师的历史ACLS操作数据的解读表明，本研究得出的MPS会产生高于预期的不及格率。
结论
对ACLS程序进行系统的标准设定是创建掌握式学习教育项目的必要步骤。
Zotero 插件