A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cut-scores revisited: feasibility of a new method for group standard setting. | LitMetric

Background: Standard setting is one of the most contentious topics in educational measurement. Commonly-used methods all have well reported limitations. To date, there is not conclusive evidence suggesting which standard setting method yields the highest validity.

Methods: The method described and piloted in this study asked expert judges to estimate the scores on a real MCQ examination that they consider indicated a clear pass, clear fail, and pass mark for the examination as a whole. The mean and SD of the judges responses to these estimates, Z scores and confidence intervals were used to derive the cut-score and the confidence in it.

Results: In this example the new method's cut-score was higher than the judges' estimate. The method also yielded estimates of statistical error which determine the range of the acceptable cut-score and the estimated level of confidence one may have in the accuracy of that cut-score.

Conclusions: This new standard-setting method offers some advances, and possibly advantages, in that the decisions being asked of judges are based on firmer constructs, and it takes into account variation among judges.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5991461PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1238-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

standard setting
12
method
5
cut-scores revisited
4
revisited feasibility
4
feasibility method
4
method group
4
group standard
4
setting background
4
background standard
4
setting contentious
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!