Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maguire, T.
Right arrow Articles by Harley, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Maguire, T.
Right arrow Articles by Harley, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Setting Standards for Multiple-Choice Items in Clinical Reasoning

Thomas Maguire

Ernest Skakun

Charles Harley

University ofAlberta

Standard setting is a critical component in licensing decisions. In this article, it is argued that Gross's modification of the Nedelsky procedure is a valid approach to setting standards when clinical reasoning is measured using multiple-choice questions. By defining minimum competence in terms of how candidates think about problems, the Nedelsky approach more closely reflects the construct than do competing procedures. An example application taken from the Medical Council of Canada's Qualifying Examination is used to show that the procedure leads to credible standards, that the assumptions on which the process is based are reasonable, and that the standards are consistent over time.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 15, No. 4, 434-452 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879201500406
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L. Chang, W. J. Van Der Linden, and H. J. Vos
Setting Standards and Detecting Intrajudge Inconsistency Using Interdependent Evaluation of Response Alternatives
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2004; 64(5): 781 - 801.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
R. K. Zimmerman, W. H. Barker, R. A. Strikas, E. R. Ahwesh, T. A. Mieczkowski, J. E. Janosky, and S. L. Kanter
Developing Curricula to Promote Preventive Medicine Skills: The Teaching Immunization for Medical Education (TIME) Project
JAMA, September 3, 1997; 278(9): 705 - 711.
[Abstract] [PDF]