Yim Mikyoung
Research and Development Division, Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute, Seoul, Korea.
Korean J Med Educ. 2018 Dec;30(4):347-357. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2018.110. Epub 2018 Dec 1.
The purpose of this study was to apply alternative standard setting methods for the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE), a criterion-referenced written examination, and to compare them to the conventional cut score used on the KMLE.
The process and results of criterion-referenced standard settings (i.e., the modified-Angoff and bookmark methods) were evaluated. The ratio of passing and failing examinees determined using these alternative standard setting methods was compared to the results of the conventional criteria. Additionally, the external, internal and procedural evaluation of these methods were reviewed.
The modified-Angoff method yielded the highest cut score, followed sequentially by the conventional method and the bookmark method. The classification agreement between the modified-Angoff and bookmark methods was 0.720 measured by Cohen's κ coefficient. The intra-panelist classification consistency of modified-Angoff method was higher than bookmark method. However, the inter-panelist classification consistency was vice versa. The standard setting panelists' survey results showed that the procedures of both methods were satisfactory, but panelists had more confidence in the results of the modified-Angoff method.
The modified-Angoff method showed results that were more similar to those of the conventional method. Both new methods showed very high concordance with the conventional method, as well as with each other. The modified-Angoff method was considered feasible for adoption on the KMLE. The standard setting panelists responded positively to the modified-Angoff method in terms of its practical applicability, despite certain advantages of the bookmark method.
本研究旨在将替代标准设定方法应用于韩国医师执照考试(KMLE),这是一项标准参照笔试,并将其与KMLE使用的传统及格分数进行比较。
对标准参照标准设定(即改良安格夫法和书签法)的过程和结果进行评估。将使用这些替代标准设定方法确定的考生及格和不及格比例与传统标准的结果进行比较。此外,还对这些方法的外部、内部和程序评估进行了审查。
改良安格夫法得出的及格分数最高,其次依次是传统方法和书签法。改良安格夫法和书签法之间的分类一致性通过科恩κ系数测量为0.720。改良安格夫法的专家小组内分类一致性高于书签法。然而,专家小组间的分类一致性则相反。标准设定专家小组的调查结果表明,两种方法的程序都令人满意,但专家小组成员对改良安格夫法的结果更有信心。
改良安格夫法显示的结果与传统方法更相似。两种新方法与传统方法以及彼此之间都显示出非常高的一致性。改良安格夫法被认为可在KMLE上采用。尽管书签法有某些优点,但标准设定专家小组对改良安格夫法的实际适用性给予了积极回应。