SETTING PASSING SCORE FOR METERED DOSE INHALER (MDI) OSCE STATION: EXPERIENCE AT CENTER FOR ELABORATION COMPETENCY & INNOVATION IN CLINICAL SIMULATION (CECICS) OF PHAM NGOC THACH UNIVERSIRTY OF MEDICINE (PNT-UOM)

Ngoc Phuong Thu Nguyen 1,
1 CECICS, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine

Nội dung chính của bài viết

Tóm tắt

Introduction: OSCE has been used increasingly in assessing learners globally. Standard Setting for OSCE is necessary to distinguish between a competent and an incompetent learner. This study was conducted to enhance the quality of assessment of the MDI OSCE for MS-2 at CECICS. Objective: 1. To describe steps in implementing Standard Setting for MDI Station; 2. To determine the content validity of the MDI checklist. Method: This is a cross-sectional study.  To calculate the pass mark, we followed five steps of the Angoff method. To determine the content validity of the checklist, we calculated S-CVI, I-CVI and CVR. Result: We recruited a group of 8 SMEs who are qualified to define the required level of knowledge and skills of MCC. During the online orientation organized by CECICS’ Director, all items of checklist were clarified. To avoid the time-consuming process, each SME will only determine the percentage of MCC would answer the item correctly for the first 3 items. SMEs explained their decisions on each item and discussed to resolve the discrepancies when the difference between the lowest and highest scores are greater than 15%. All SMEs made their judgements for the remaining items after the meeting. One week later, the 2nd online meeting was organized to collect all the judgements and repeated all steps to collect MCC. Finally, we obtained the passing score of 81% for this station by averaging the total score of 8 SMEs. The calculated value of S-CVI/average, S-CVI/UA, and CVR were all equal to 1. The results provided good evidence of content validity. Conclusion: In this study, Angoff method has shown to be practical in providing defensible passing score for the MDI station. Besides that, MDI checklist has evidence to support the content validity. In the future, to achieve a higher standard in measuring performance assessment, the passing scores of all OSCE at CECICS should be determined by appropriate standard setting methods.

Chi tiết bài viết

Tài liệu tham khảo

1. Harden RM, Gleeson FA. ASME Medical Educational Booklet no. 8 . Assessment of medical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). MedEduc. 1979;13: 41-54.
2. Hillary Ta, Bryant Lin, Latha Palaniappan. Vietnamese and Vietnamese-American Health Statistics, 2003-2019. CARE Data Brief. 2020.
3. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health. 2006;29(5):489-97.
4. Ben-David MF. AMEE Guide No. 18: Standard setting in student assessment. Medical Teacher 2000.
5. Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yuso. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Malaysian Association of Education in Medicine and Health Sciences 2019.
6. Berk RA. A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Rev Educ Res. 1986;56:137-172.
7. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Nursing Research. 1992;5(4):194-7.
8. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986;35(6):381-5.
9. Lawshe C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 1975;28, 563-575.