Standard setting: Comparison of two methods

BACKGROUND: The outcome of assessments is determined by the standard-setting method used. There is a wide range of standard – setting methods and the two used most extensively in undergraduate medical education in the UK are the norm-reference and the criterion-reference methods. The aims of the study were to compare these two standard-setting methods for a multiple-choice question examination and to estimate the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method. METHODS: The norm – reference method of standard -setting (mean minus 1 SD) was applied to the 'raw' scores of 78 4th-year medical students on a multiple-choice examination (MCQ). Two panels of raters also set the standard using the modified Angoff method for the same multiple-choice question paper on two occasions (6 months apart). We compared the pass/fail rates derived from the norm reference and the Angoff methods and also assessed the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method. RESULTS: The pass rate with the norm-reference method was 85% (66/78) and that by the Angoff method was 100% (78 out of 78). The percentage agreement between Angoff method and norm-reference was 78% (95% CI 69% – 87%). The modified Angoff method had an inter-rater reliability of 0.81 – 0.82 and a test-retest reliability of 0.59–0.74. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the outcomes of these two standard-setting methods, as shown by the difference in the proportion of candidates that passed and failed the assessment. The modified Angoff method was found to have good inter-rater reliability and moderate test-retest reliability

Setting a standard for performance assessment of doctor-patient communication in general practice.

Contains fulltext : 57755.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)CONTEXT: Continuing professional development (CPD) of general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: Criterion-referenced standards for assessing performance in the real practice of general practitioners (GPs) should be available to identify learning needs or poor performers for CPD. The applicability of common standard setting procedures in authentic assessment has not been investigated. METHODS: To set a standard for assessment of GP-patient communication with video observation of daily practice, we investigated 2 well known examples of 2 different standard setting approaches. An Angoff procedure was applied to 8 written cases. A borderline regression method was applied to videotaped consultations of 88 GPs. The procedures and outcomes were evaluated by the applicability of the procedure, the reliability of the standards and the credibility as perceived by the stakeholders, namely, the GPs. RESULTS: Both methods are applicable and reliable; the obtained standards are credible according to the GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both modified methods can be used to set a standard for assessment in daily practice. The context in which the standard will be used - i.e. the specific purpose of the standard, the moment the standard must be available or if specific feedback must be given - is important because methods differ in practical aspects