↓ Skip to main content

How to set the bar in competency-based medical education: standard setting after an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to set the bar in competency-based medical education: standard setting after an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0506-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Dwyer, Sarah Wright, Kulamakan Mahan Kulasegaram, John Theodoropoulos, Jaskarndip Chahal, David Wasserstein, Charlotte Ringsted, Brian Hodges, Darrell Ogilvie-Harris

Abstract

The goal of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in Competency-based Medical Education (CBME) is to establish a minimal level of competence. The purpose of this study was to 1) to determine the credibility and acceptability of the modified Angoff method of standard setting in the setting of CBME, using the Borderline Group (BG) method and the Borderline Regression (BLR) method as a reference standard; 2) to determine if it is feasible to set different standards for junior and senior residents, and 3) to determine the desired characteristics of the judges applying the modified Angoff method. The results of a previous OSCE study (21 junior residents, 18 senior residents, and six fellows) were used. Three groups of judges performed the modified Angoff method for both junior and senior residents: 1) sports medicine surgeons, 2) non-sports medicine orthopedic surgeons, and 3) sports fellows. Judges defined a borderline resident as a resident performing at a level between competent and a novice at each station. For each checklist item, the judges answered yes or no for "will the borderline/advanced beginner examinee respond correctly to this item?" The pass mark was calculated by averaging the scores. This pass mark was compared to that created using both the BG and the BLR methods. A paired t-test showed that all examiner groups expected senior residents to get significantly higher percentage of checklist items correct compared to junior residents (all stations p < 0.001). There were no significant differences due to judge type. For senior residents, there were no significant differences between the cut scores determined by the modified Angoff method and the BG/BLR method. For junior residents, the cut scores determined by the modified Angoff method were lower than the cut scores determined by the BG/BLR Method (all p < 0.01). The results of this study show that the modified Angoff method is an acceptable method of setting different pass marks for senior and junior residents. The use of this method enables both senior and junior residents to sit the same OSCE, preferable in the regular assessment environment of CBME.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Iraq 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 170 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Master 16 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 53 31%
Unknown 47 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 3%
Unspecified 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 50 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2021.
All research outputs
#12,880,313
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,501
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,794
of 393,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#33
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.