Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
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 Talente, G.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Talente, G.
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, J. F.
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?

A Model for Setting Performance Standards for Standardized Patient Examinations

Gregg Talente

The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University

Steven A. Haist

University of Kentucky

John F. Wilson

University of Kentucky

Setting standards for complex performance assessments is difficult. This report describes and evaluates a model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations. A variation of a modified Angoff standard-setting procedure was used to set cutoffs for a standardized patient exercise. Analysis of the procedure was based on evaluation of the impact of the iterative process, the ability of the final standards to accurately classify trainees and the judges’confidence in the procedure and final standards. The practicality of the process also was assessed. The iterative steps in this procedure led to a reduction in the variance between the judges’ratings. All seven judges reported confidence in the final standards. The mean time commitment for each judge was 4.7 work hours. This model for setting performance standards successfully set useful standards for this exam, was practical, and can be utilized to set performance standards for other standardized patient examinations.

Key Words: medical education • standard setting • standardized patients • testing

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 26, No. 4, 427-446 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0163278703258105
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
The Relationship Between Experience With Standardized Patient Examinations and Subsequent Standardized Patient Examination Performance: A Potential Problem With Standardized Patient Exam Validity
Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2007; 30(1): 64 - 74.
[Abstract] [PDF]