通过分组层次分析法确定国家医师资格考试内容规范的权重

Xiaomei Hong, Zhehan Jiang, Hanyu Liu, Fen Cai
{"title":"通过分组层次分析法确定国家医师资格考试内容规范的权重","authors":"Xiaomei Hong, Zhehan Jiang, Hanyu Liu, Fen Cai","doi":"10.1111/emip.12620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Job and practice analysis is a commonly used method for determining examination content specifications. However, difficulties arise when many domains are present, as mainstream approaches do not fully adhere to the essence of the weighing process, namely a “comparison‐evaluation‐decision” framework for assigning percentage values to the content. Stemming from the principle of comparing multiple criteria for making decisions, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides an appropriate solution that circumvents the aforementioned obstacle. We propose using an extended version of AHP called Group AHP (GAHP) to weight content specifications for standardized medical education assessment. Specifically, GAHP is integrated with the Delphi method and expected to aid exam developers in integrating feedback from diverse experienced physicians when determining content specifications for the National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE) in China. The complete flow of the proposed approach was demonstrated in this study with an application to the NMLE.","PeriodicalId":516921,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice","volume":" April","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Weighting Content Specifications for the National Medical Licensing Examination via Group Analytic Hierarchy Process\",\"authors\":\"Xiaomei Hong, Zhehan Jiang, Hanyu Liu, Fen Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/emip.12620\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Job and practice analysis is a commonly used method for determining examination content specifications. However, difficulties arise when many domains are present, as mainstream approaches do not fully adhere to the essence of the weighing process, namely a “comparison‐evaluation‐decision” framework for assigning percentage values to the content. Stemming from the principle of comparing multiple criteria for making decisions, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides an appropriate solution that circumvents the aforementioned obstacle. We propose using an extended version of AHP called Group AHP (GAHP) to weight content specifications for standardized medical education assessment. Specifically, GAHP is integrated with the Delphi method and expected to aid exam developers in integrating feedback from diverse experienced physicians when determining content specifications for the National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE) in China. The complete flow of the proposed approach was demonstrated in this study with an application to the NMLE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice\",\"volume\":\" April\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12620\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作与实践分析是确定考试内容规格的常用方法。然而,当涉及多个领域时就会出现困难,因为主流方法并没有完全遵循权衡过程的本质,即为内容分配百分比值的 "比较-评价-决策 "框架。分析层次过程(AHP)源于比较多个标准进行决策的原则,它提供了一个适当的解决方案,绕过了上述障碍。我们建议使用 AHP 的扩展版本--组 AHP(GAHP)--来为标准化医学教育评估的内容规格加权。具体而言,GAHP 与德尔菲法相结合,有望帮助考试开发人员在确定中国国家医师资格考试(NMLE)的内容规范时整合来自不同经验医师的反馈意见。本研究通过对国家医师资格考试的应用,展示了所建议方法的完整流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Weighting Content Specifications for the National Medical Licensing Examination via Group Analytic Hierarchy Process
Job and practice analysis is a commonly used method for determining examination content specifications. However, difficulties arise when many domains are present, as mainstream approaches do not fully adhere to the essence of the weighing process, namely a “comparison‐evaluation‐decision” framework for assigning percentage values to the content. Stemming from the principle of comparing multiple criteria for making decisions, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides an appropriate solution that circumvents the aforementioned obstacle. We propose using an extended version of AHP called Group AHP (GAHP) to weight content specifications for standardized medical education assessment. Specifically, GAHP is integrated with the Delphi method and expected to aid exam developers in integrating feedback from diverse experienced physicians when determining content specifications for the National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE) in China. The complete flow of the proposed approach was demonstrated in this study with an application to the NMLE.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Weighting Content Specifications for the National Medical Licensing Examination via Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Item Response Theory Models for Polytomous Multidimensional Forced‐Choice Items to Measure Construct Differentiation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1