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 Norcini, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Norcini, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, M.
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?

Scoring and Standard Setting with Standardized Patients

John J. Norcini

Paula L. Stillman

Alton I. Sutnick

Mary Beth Regan

Heather L. Haley

Reed G. Williams

Miriam Friedman

Educational Commission for Foreign, Medical Graduates, Philadelphia

The purpose of this study was to compare the continuous method of scoring a performance test composed of standardized patients with a derivative method that assigned each examinee a dichotomous score and to explore the use of Ang off 's method at the case level with these two scoring methods. Both scoring systems produced reasonable means and distributions of scores. The continuous scores were somewhat more reproducible than the dichotomous scores although neither was very relay?ducible. Pass rates for both scoring systems were appropriately very high and thus the reproducibility of the pass/fail decisions was also high. Regardless of the scoring system, the application of Angoff's method reported in this article has the advantages of efficiency and enhanced credibility to the experts.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 16, No. 3, 322-332 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879301600305
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
 Eval Health ProfHome page
G. Talente, S. A. Haist, and J. F. Wilson
A Model for Setting Performance Standards for Standardized Patient Examinations
Eval Health Prof, December 1, 2003; 26(4): 427 - 446.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
R. M. Epstein and E. M. Hundert
Defining and Assessing Professional Competence
JAMA, January 9, 2002; 287(2): 226 - 235.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]