• 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

关注定量方法。确定临界值。

Focus on quantitative methods. Determining cut-off scores.

作者信息

Goodwin L D

机构信息

School of Education, University of Colorado at Denver 80217-3364, USA.

出版信息

Res Nurs Health. 1996 Jun;19(3):249-56. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199606)19:3<249::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-K.

DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199606)19:3<249::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-K
PMID:8628913
Abstract

The major methods for determining cut-off scores for certification and licensing examinations, and other criterion-referenced tests that result in pass/fail decisions, are described. Two major categories of methods are available: examination-centered and examinee-centered. Particular emphasis is given to the widely used Angoff (1971) method, and its common modifications. Some of the outstanding procedural and statistical issues are briefly discussed, including the need for more attention given to determining cut-off scores for measures used in clinical and research settings.

摘要

本文描述了用于确定认证和许可考试以及其他导致通过/失败决定的标准参照测试的临界分数的主要方法。有两大类方法:以考试为中心的方法和以考生为中心的方法。特别强调了广泛使用的安格夫(1971年)方法及其常见的修改形式。简要讨论了一些突出的程序和统计问题,包括需要更多地关注确定临床和研究环境中使用的测量方法的临界分数。

相似文献

1
Focus on quantitative methods. Determining cut-off scores.关注定量方法。确定临界值。
Res Nurs Health. 1996 Jun;19(3):249-56. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199606)19:3<249::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-K.
2
A work-centered approach for setting passing scores on performance-based assessments.一种基于工作的方法来设定基于表现的评估的及格分数。
Eval Health Prof. 2005 Sep;28(3):349-69. doi: 10.1177/0163278705278282.
3
Determination of passing scores on certification examinations: an unresolved issue.认证考试及格分数的确定:一个未解决的问题。
J Allied Health. 1985 Nov;14(4):415-26.
4
Validity evidence for USMLE examination cut scores: results of a large-scale survey.美国医师执照考试(USMLE)考试分数切分的有效性证据:一项大规模调查的结果。
Acad Med. 2010 Oct;85(10 Suppl):S93-7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed4028.
5
Using standardized patients in licensing/certification examinations: comparison of two tests in Canada.在执照/认证考试中使用标准化病人:加拿大两项测试的比较。
Fam Med. 1997 Jan;29(1):27-32.
6
Predicting licensure success with a computerized comprehensive nursing exam. The HESI Exit Exam.通过计算机化综合护理考试预测执照考试成功率。即HESI结业考试。
Comput Nurs. 1999 May-Jun;17(3):120-5; quiz 126-7.
7
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.
8
Selected National League for Nursing achievement test scores as predictors of state board examination scores.选定的全国护理联盟成绩测试分数作为州委员会考试分数的预测指标。
Nurs Res. 1976 Jan-Feb;25(1):35-8.
9
Predictive validity of osteopathic medical licensing examinations for osteopathic medical knowledge measured by graduate written examinations.通过研究生笔试衡量的整骨医学执照考试对整骨医学知识的预测效度。
J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003 Jul;103(7):337-42.
10
Who will pass the dental OSCE? Comparison of the Angoff and the borderline regression standard setting methods.谁将通过牙科客观结构化临床考试?安格夫法与边界回归标准设定方法的比较。
Eur J Dent Educ. 2009 Aug;13(3):162-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2008.00568.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Reliability and Validity of the HD-PRO-TriadTM, a Health-Related Quality of Life Measure Designed to Assess the Symptom Triad of Huntington's Disease.HD-PRO-TriadTM的可靠性和有效性,这是一种旨在评估亨廷顿舞蹈症症状三联征的健康相关生活质量测量工具。
J Huntingtons Dis. 2017;6(3):201-215. doi: 10.3233/JHD-170238.