• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

韩国医师执照考试笔试标准设定中 yes/no Angoff 和 Hofstee 方法独立使用的可能性:描述性研究。

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.

机构信息

Department of Medical Education, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Department of Family Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:33. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.33. Epub 2022 Dec 12.

DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.33
PMID:36503200
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9845067/
Abstract

PURPOSE

This study aims to apply the yes/no Angoff and Hofstee methods to actual Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) 2022 written examination data to estimate cut scores for the written KMLE.

METHODS

Fourteen panelists gathered to derive the cut score of the 86th KMLE written examination data using the yes/no Angoff method. The panel reviewed the items individually before the meeting and shared their respective understanding of the minimum-competency physician. The standard setting process was conducted in 5 rounds over a total of 800 minutes. In addition, 2 rounds of the Hofstee method were conducted before starting the standard setting process and after the second round of yes/no Angoff.

RESULTS

For yes/no Angoff, as each round progressed, the panel’s opinion gradually converged to a cut score of 198 points, and the final passing rate was 95.1%. The Hofstee cut score was 208 points out of a maximum 320 with a passing rate of 92.1% at the first round. It scored 204 points with a passing rate of 93.3% in the second round.

CONCLUSION

The difference between the cut scores obtained through yes/no Angoff and Hofstee methods did not exceed 2% points, and they were within the range of cut scores from previous studies. In both methods, the difference between the panelists decreased as rounds were repeated. Overall, our findings suggest the acceptability of cut scores and the possibility of independent use of both methods.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在将 yes/no Angoff 和 Hofstee 方法应用于实际的韩国医师执照考试(KMLE)2022 笔试数据,以估算笔试的及格分数。

方法

14 名专家组成员聚集在一起,使用 yes/no Angoff 方法从第 86 次 KMLE 笔试数据中得出及格分数。在会议之前,专家组单独审查了这些项目,并分享了他们对最低能力医师的各自理解。标准制定过程共进行了 5 轮,总计 800 分钟。此外,在开始标准制定过程之前和 yes/no Angoff 第二轮之后,还进行了两轮 Hofstee 方法。

结果

对于 yes/no Angoff,随着每一轮的进行,专家组的意见逐渐收敛到 198 分的及格分数,最终的通过率为 95.1%。第一轮 Hofstee 的及格分数为 320 分中的 208 分,通过率为 92.1%;第二轮的及格分数为 204 分,通过率为 93.3%。

结论

yes/no Angoff 和 Hofstee 方法得出的及格分数差异不超过 2%,且均在以往研究的及格分数范围内。在这两种方法中,随着轮数的重复,专家组之间的差异逐渐减小。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,这两种方法的及格分数是可接受的,且有可能独立使用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c9f/9845067/192b524ae6d2/jeehp-19-33f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c9f/9845067/10089c913ae0/jeehp-19-33f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c9f/9845067/192b524ae6d2/jeehp-19-33f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c9f/9845067/10089c913ae0/jeehp-19-33f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c9f/9845067/192b524ae6d2/jeehp-19-33f2.jpg

相似文献

1
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.韩国医师执照考试笔试标准设定中 yes/no Angoff 和 Hofstee 方法独立使用的可能性:描述性研究。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:33. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.33. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
2
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.使用是/否 Angoff 法替代百分比 Angoff 法来估计韩国医师执照考试的及格分数的可能性:一项模拟研究。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:23. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.23. Epub 2022 Aug 31.
3
Comparison of results between modified-Angoff and bookmark methods for estimating cut score of the Korean medical licensing examination.韩国医学执照考试及格分数估计中改良安格夫法与书签法结果的比较。
Korean J Med Educ. 2018 Dec;30(4):347-357. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2018.110. Epub 2018 Dec 1.
4
Comparison of standard-setting methods for the Korea Radiological technologist Licensing Examination : Angoff, Ebel, Bookmark, and Hofstee.韩国放射技师执照考试标准设定方法的比较:安格夫法、埃贝尔法、书签法和霍夫斯泰法。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2018;15:32. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.32. Epub 2018 Dec 26.
5
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.使用改良的 Angoff、改良的 Ebel 和 Hofstee 标准设定方法对韩国医师执照考试的不同题量测试集进行切分分数的相似性比较。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2020;17:28. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.28. Epub 2020 Oct 5.
6
Using the Angoff method to set a standard on mock exams for the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination.运用安格夫方法为韩国护士执照考试的模拟考试设定标准。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2020;17:14. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.14. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
7
Challenging the arbitrary cutoff score of 60%: Standard setting evidence from preclinical Operative Dentistry course.挑战 60%的任意截分分数:来自临床前口腔修复学课程的标准设定证据。
Med Teach. 2017 Apr;39(sup1):S75-S79. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1254752. Epub 2017 Jan 25.
8
Equal Z standard-setting method to estimate the minimum number of panelists for a medical school’s objective structured clinical examination in Taiwan: a simulation study.等 Z 标准设定法评估台湾医学学校客观结构化临床考试所需最少考站数:模拟研究。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:27. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.27. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
9
A Comparison of Approaches for Mastery Learning Standard Setting.掌握学习标准设定方法比较。
Acad Med. 2018 Jul;93(7):1079-1084. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002182.
10
Comparison of two standard-setting methods for advanced cardiac life support training.两种高级心脏生命支持培训标准设定方法的比较。
Acad Med. 2005 Oct;80(10 Suppl):S63-6. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200510001-00018.

引用本文的文献

1
Presidential address: improving item validity and adopting computer-based testing, clinical skills assessments, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality in health professions licensing examinations in Korea.主席致辞:提高项目效度并在韩国卫生专业执照考试中采用计算机化考试、临床技能评估、人工智能和虚拟现实技术
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:8. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.8. Epub 2023 Mar 27.
2
Issues in the 3rd year of the COVID-19 pandemic, including computer-based testing, study design, ChatGPT, journal metrics, and appreciation to reviewers.新冠疫情第三年的相关问题,包括计算机化考试、研究设计、ChatGPT、期刊指标以及对审稿人的感谢。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023;20:5. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.5. Epub 2023 Jan 31.

本文引用的文献

1
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.使用是/否 Angoff 法替代百分比 Angoff 法来估计韩国医师执照考试的及格分数的可能性:一项模拟研究。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:23. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.23. Epub 2022 Aug 31.
2
Application of computer-based testing in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination, the emergence of the metaverse in medical education, journal metrics and statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers.计算机化考试在韩国医师执照考试中的应用、医学教育中虚拟世界的出现、期刊指标与统计,以及对审稿人和志愿者的感谢。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:2. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.2. Epub 2022 Jan 13.
3
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.使用改良的 Angoff、改良的 Ebel 和 Hofstee 标准设定方法对韩国医师执照考试的不同题量测试集进行切分分数的相似性比较。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2020;17:28. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.28. Epub 2020 Oct 5.
4
Using the Angoff method to set a standard on mock exams for the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination.运用安格夫方法为韩国护士执照考试的模拟考试设定标准。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2020;17:14. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.14. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
5
Performance of the Ebel standard-setting method in spring 2019 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada internal medicine certification examination consisted of multiple-choice questions.2019年春季加拿大皇家内科医师学会内科认证考试中埃贝尔标准设定方法的表现由多项选择题组成。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2020;17:12. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.12. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
6
Comparison of standard-setting methods for the Korea Radiological technologist Licensing Examination : Angoff, Ebel, Bookmark, and Hofstee.韩国放射技师执照考试标准设定方法的比较:安格夫法、埃贝尔法、书签法和霍夫斯泰法。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2018;15:32. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.32. Epub 2018 Dec 26.
7
Comparison of results between modified-Angoff and bookmark methods for estimating cut score of the Korean medical licensing examination.韩国医学执照考试及格分数估计中改良安格夫法与书签法结果的比较。
Korean J Med Educ. 2018 Dec;30(4):347-357. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2018.110. Epub 2018 Dec 1.
8
[Perceptions on item disclosure for the Korean medical licensing examination].[对韩国医学执照考试项目披露的看法]
Korean J Med Educ. 2015 Sep;27(3):167-75. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2015.27.3.167. Epub 2015 Aug 26.
9
How to set standards on performance-based examinations: AMEE Guide No. 85.如何制定基于表现的考试标准:AMEE 指南第 85 号。
Med Teach. 2014 Feb;36(2):97-110. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.853119. Epub 2013 Nov 20.
10
Reconsidering the cut score of Korean National Medical Licensing Examination.重新审视韩国国家医师资格考试的及格分数。
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2007;4:1. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2007.4.1. Epub 2007 Apr 28.