Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Acknowledgements
Authors’ reply
Book Review
Book Reviews
Classics In Indian Medicine
Clinical Case Report
Clinical Case Reports
Clinical Research Methods
Clinico-pathological Conference
Clinicopathological Conference
Conferences
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Editorial
Eminent Indians in Medicine
Errata
Erratum
Everyday Practice
Film Review
History of Medicine
HOW TO DO IT
Images In Medicine
Indian Medical Institutions
Letter from Bristol
Letter from Chennai
Letter From Ganiyari
Letter from Glasgow
Letter from London
Letter from Mangalore
Letter From Mumbai
Letter From Nepal
Masala
Medical Education
Medical Ethics
Medicine and Society
News From Here And There
Notice of Retraction
Notices
Obituaries
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Review Article
Selected Summaries
Selected Summary
Short Report
Short Reports
Speaking for Myself
Speaking for Ourselve
Speaking for Ourselves
Students@nmji
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Acknowledgements
Authors’ reply
Book Review
Book Reviews
Classics In Indian Medicine
Clinical Case Report
Clinical Case Reports
Clinical Research Methods
Clinico-pathological Conference
Clinicopathological Conference
Conferences
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Editorial
Eminent Indians in Medicine
Errata
Erratum
Everyday Practice
Film Review
History of Medicine
HOW TO DO IT
Images In Medicine
Indian Medical Institutions
Letter from Bristol
Letter from Chennai
Letter From Ganiyari
Letter from Glasgow
Letter from London
Letter from Mangalore
Letter From Mumbai
Letter From Nepal
Masala
Medical Education
Medical Ethics
Medicine and Society
News From Here And There
Notice of Retraction
Notices
Obituaries
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Review Article
Selected Summaries
Selected Summary
Short Report
Short Reports
Speaking for Myself
Speaking for Ourselve
Speaking for Ourselves
Students@nmji
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Medical Education
2016:29:3;160-162
PMID: 27808068

Standard setting of objective structured practical examination by modified Angoff method: A pilot study

M Ganesh Kamath1 , Vinod Pallath2 , K Ramnarayan3 , Asha Kamath4 , Sharmila Torke1 , James Gonsalves1
1 Department of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College (MMMC), Manipal University, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College (MMMC), Manipal University, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Pathology, Melaka Manipal Medical College (MMMC), Manipal University, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
4 Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India

Corresponding Author:
M Ganesh Kamath
Department of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College (MMMC), Manipal University, Manipal 576104, Karnataka
India
kamath18@gmail.com
How to cite this article:
Kamath M G, Pallath V, Ramnarayan K, Kamath A, Torke S, Gonsalves J. Standard setting of objective structured practical examination by modified Angoff method: A pilot study. Natl Med J India 2016;29:160-162
Copyright: (C)2016 The National Medical Journal of India

Abstract

Background. The undergraduate curriculum at our institution is divided system-wise into four blocks, each block ending with theory and objective structured practical examination (OSPE). The OSPE in Physiology consists of 12 stations, and a conventional minimum score to qualify is 50%. We aimed to incorporate standard setting using the modified Angoff method in OSPE to differentiate the competent from the non-competent student and to explore the possibility of introducing standard setting in Physiology OSPE at our institution. Methods. Experts rated the OSPE using the modified Angoff method to obtain the standard set cut-off in two of the four blocks. We assessed the OSPE marks of 110 first year medical students. Chi-square test was used to compare the number of students who scored less than standard set cut-off and conventional cut-off; correlation coefficient was used to assess the relation between OSPE and theory marks in both blocks. Feedback was obtained from the experts.
Results. The standard set was 62% and 67% for blocks II and III, respectively. The use of standard set cut-off resulted in 16.3% (n=18) and 22.7% (n=25) students being declared unsuccessful in blocks II and III, respectively. Comparison between the number, who scored less than standard set and conventional cut-off was statistically significant (p=0.001). The correlation coefficient was 0.65 (p=0.003) and 0.52 (p<0.001) in blocks II and III, respectively. The experts welcomed the idea of standard setting.
Conclusion. Standard setting helped in differentiating the competent from the non-competent student, indicating that standard setting enhances the quality of OSPE as an assessment tool.

.


Fulltext Views
568

PDF downloads
174
Show Sections