Suppr超能文献

关于健康测试的批判性思维的及格和掌握标准应该是什么?一项共识研究。

What should the standard be for passing and mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health Test? A consensus study.

作者信息

Nsangi Allen, Aranza Diana, Asimwe Roger, Munaabi-Babigumira Susan Kyomuhendo, Nantongo Judith, Nordheim Lena Victoria, Ochieng Robert, Oyuga Cyril, Uwimana Innocent, Dahlgren Astrid, Oxman Andrew

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.

University Department for Health Studies, University of Split, Split, Croatia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2023 Feb 24;13(2):e066890. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066890.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Most health literacy measures rely on subjective self-assessment. The Critical Thinking about Health Test is an objective measure that includes two multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for each of the nine Informed Health Choices Key Concepts included in the educational resources for secondary schools. The objective of this study was to determine cut-off scores for passing (the border between having and not having a basic understanding and the ability to apply the nine concepts) and mastery (the border between having mastered and not having mastered them).

DESIGN

Using a combination of two widely used methods: Angoff's and Nedelsky's, a panel judged the likelihood that an individual on the border of passing and another on the border of having mastered the concepts would answer each MCQ correctly. The cut-off scores were determined by summing up the probability of answering each MCQ correctly. Their independent assessments were summarised and discussed. A nominal group technique was used to reach a consensus.

SETTING

The study was conducted in secondary schools in East Africa.

PARTICIPANTS

The panel included eight individuals with 5 or more years' experience in the following areas: evaluation of critical thinking interventions, curriculum development, teaching of lower secondary school and evidence-informed decision-making.

RESULTS

The panel agreed that for a passing score, students had to answer 9 of the 18 questions and for a mastery score, 14 out of 18 questions correctly.

CONCLUSION

There was wide variation in the judgements made by individual panel members for many of the questions, but they quickly reached a consensus on the cut-off scores after discussions.

摘要

目的

大多数健康素养测量方法依赖主观自我评估。健康批判性思维测试是一种客观测量方法,针对中学教育资源中包含的九个明智健康选择关键概念中的每一个都有两个多项选择题。本研究的目的是确定及格分数(具备和不具备基本理解以及应用这九个概念的能力之间的界限)和掌握分数(掌握和未掌握这些概念之间的界限)。

设计

采用两种广泛使用的方法(安戈夫法和内德尔斯基法)相结合的方式,一个专家小组判断处于及格边缘和掌握概念边缘的个体正确回答每个多项选择题的可能性。通过将正确回答每个多项选择题的概率相加来确定及格分数。对他们的独立评估进行了总结和讨论。采用名义群体技术达成共识。

背景

该研究在东非的中学进行。

参与者

专家小组包括八名在以下领域有五年或五年以上经验的人员:批判性思维干预评估、课程开发、初中教学和循证决策。

结果

专家小组一致认为,及格分数要求学生在18道题中答对9道,掌握分数要求在18道题中答对14道。

结论

对于许多问题,专家小组成员的判断存在很大差异,但经过讨论后,他们很快就及格分数达成了共识。

相似文献

5
Learning to think critically about health using digital technology in Ugandan lower secondary schools: A contextual analysis.
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 2;17(2):e0260367. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260367. eCollection 2022.
9
Prioritisation of Informed Health Choices (IHC) key concepts to be included in lower secondary school resources: A consensus study.
PLoS One. 2023 Apr 7;18(4):e0267422. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267422. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Prioritisation of Informed Health Choices (IHC) key concepts to be included in lower secondary school resources: A consensus study.
PLoS One. 2023 Apr 7;18(4):e0267422. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267422. eCollection 2023.
2
Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices.
F1000Res. 2018 Nov 12;7:1784. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16771.2. eCollection 2018.
3
Quality of health literacy instruments used in children and adolescents: a systematic review.
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 14;8(6):e020080. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020080.
7
Insights into the Angoff method: results from a simulation study.
BMC Med Educ. 2016 May 4;16:134. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0656-7.
8
Health literacy and adherence to medical treatment in chronic and acute illness: A meta-analysis.
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jul;99(7):1079-1086. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.020. Epub 2016 Feb 1.
9
A critical review of population health literacy assessment.
BMC Public Health. 2015 Mar 4;15:215. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1551-6.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验