克服60%的通过率,提高考核质量。

GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung Pub Date : 2015-10-15 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma000985
Ara Tekian, John Norcini
{"title":"克服60%的通过率,提高考核质量。","authors":"Ara Tekian,&nbsp;John Norcini","doi":"10.3205/zma000985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is not unusual for institutions around the world to have fixed standards (e.g., 60%) for all of their examinations. This creates problems in the creation of examinations, since all of the content has to be chosen with an eye toward this fixed standard. As a result, the validity of the decisions based on these examinations can be adversely influenced, making them less useful for their intended purposes. Over the past several decades, many institutions have addressed this problem by using standard setting methods which are defensible, acceptable, and credible [1], [2]. Many methods are available and the major reasons to use them is to ensure that test content is appropriately selected and to be as fair to the students and other test users as possible [2], [3]. One barrier to the wider use of these methods is that some institutions object to the fact that the fixed standard (e.g., 60%) has not been applied. However, it is possible to rescale the passing score so that it is equal to the fixed standard, and then apply that same rescaling calculation to all of the test scores. This ensures that the institutional guidelines are not violated and allows the application of accepted methods of standard-setting. In turn, the application of these methods allow the content of the test to be selected without regard to a fixed standard, increases the validity of the decisions being made, and ensures a fairer and more accurate test of students. </p>","PeriodicalId":30054,"journal":{"name":"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung","volume":"32 4","pages":"Doc43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606480/pdf/","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overcome the 60% passing score and improve the quality of assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Ara Tekian,&nbsp;John Norcini\",\"doi\":\"10.3205/zma000985\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>It is not unusual for institutions around the world to have fixed standards (e.g., 60%) for all of their examinations. This creates problems in the creation of examinations, since all of the content has to be chosen with an eye toward this fixed standard. As a result, the validity of the decisions based on these examinations can be adversely influenced, making them less useful for their intended purposes. Over the past several decades, many institutions have addressed this problem by using standard setting methods which are defensible, acceptable, and credible [1], [2]. Many methods are available and the major reasons to use them is to ensure that test content is appropriately selected and to be as fair to the students and other test users as possible [2], [3]. One barrier to the wider use of these methods is that some institutions object to the fact that the fixed standard (e.g., 60%) has not been applied. However, it is possible to rescale the passing score so that it is equal to the fixed standard, and then apply that same rescaling calculation to all of the test scores. This ensures that the institutional guidelines are not violated and allows the application of accepted methods of standard-setting. In turn, the application of these methods allow the content of the test to be selected without regard to a fixed standard, increases the validity of the decisions being made, and ensures a fairer and more accurate test of students. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung\",\"volume\":\"32 4\",\"pages\":\"Doc43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606480/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000985\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000985","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

世界各地的机构对所有考试都有固定的标准(例如,60%),这并不罕见。这就给考试的创建带来了问题,因为所有的内容都必须按照这个固定的标准来选择。因此,基于这些审查的决定的有效性可能受到不利影响,使其对其预期目的的用处更小。在过去的几十年里,许多机构通过使用可辩护的、可接受的和可信的标准制定方法来解决这个问题[1],[2]。有许多方法可供选择,使用这些方法的主要原因是为了确保适当选择测试内容,并尽可能公平地对待学生和其他测试用户[2],[3]。更广泛使用这些方法的一个障碍是,一些机构反对没有适用固定标准(例如60%)这一事实。但是,可以重新调整通过分数,使其与固定标准相等,然后将相同的重新调整计算应用于所有考试分数。这确保了机构准则不会被违反,并允许采用公认的标准制定方法。反过来,这些方法的应用使考试内容的选择不受固定标准的影响,增加了所做决定的有效性,并确保对学生进行更公平、更准确的考试。
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
Overcome the 60% passing score and improve the quality of assessment.

It is not unusual for institutions around the world to have fixed standards (e.g., 60%) for all of their examinations. This creates problems in the creation of examinations, since all of the content has to be chosen with an eye toward this fixed standard. As a result, the validity of the decisions based on these examinations can be adversely influenced, making them less useful for their intended purposes. Over the past several decades, many institutions have addressed this problem by using standard setting methods which are defensible, acceptable, and credible [1], [2]. Many methods are available and the major reasons to use them is to ensure that test content is appropriately selected and to be as fair to the students and other test users as possible [2], [3]. One barrier to the wider use of these methods is that some institutions object to the fact that the fixed standard (e.g., 60%) has not been applied. However, it is possible to rescale the passing score so that it is equal to the fixed standard, and then apply that same rescaling calculation to all of the test scores. This ensures that the institutional guidelines are not violated and allows the application of accepted methods of standard-setting. In turn, the application of these methods allow the content of the test to be selected without regard to a fixed standard, increases the validity of the decisions being made, and ensures a fairer and more accurate test of students.

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
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
8th meeting of the medical assessment consortium UCAN: "Collaborative Perspectives for Competency-based and Quality-assured Medical Assessment". Influence of a revision course and the gender of examiners on the grades of the final ENT exam--a retrospective review of 3961 exams. The Final Oral/Practical State Examination at Freiburg Medical Faculty in 2012--Analysis of grading to test quality assurance. The new final Clinical Skills examination in human medicine in Switzerland: Essential steps of exam development, implementation and evaluation, and central insights from the perspective of the national Working Group. Electronic acquisition of OSCE performance using tablets.
×
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