This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Setting pass scores for assessment of technical performance by surgical trainees. BJS 2016; 103: 300-306.
Published: 10th December 2015
Authors: S. de Montbrun, L. Satterthwaite, T. P. Grantcharov
Background
One of the major challenges of competency‐based training is defining a score representing a competent performance. The objective of this study was to set pass scores for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill.
Method
Pass scores for the examination were set using three standard setting methods applied to data collected prospectively from first‐year surgical residents (trainees). General surgery residents were then assigned an overall pass–fail status for each method. Using a compensatory model, residents passed the eight station examinations if they met the overall pass score; using a conjunctive model, residents passed if they met the overall pass score and passed at least 50 per cent of the stations. The consistency of the pass–fail decision across the three methods, and between a compensatory and conjunctive model, were compared.
Results
Pass scores were stable across all three methods using data from 513 residents, 133 of whom were general surgeons. Consistency of the pass–fail decision across the three methods was 95·5 and 93·2 per cent using compensatory and conjunctive models respectively. Consistency of the pass–fail status between compensatory and conjunctive models for all three methods was also very high (91·7, 95·5 and 96·2 per cent).
Conclusion
Consistency in pass–fail status between the various methods builds evidence of validity for the set scores. These methods can be applied and studied across a variety of assessment platforms, helping to increase the use of standard setting for competency‐based training.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Leading article
Authors: C. Chamberlain, J. M. Blazeby
Original article
Authors: S. J. Chapman, R. C. Grossman, M. E. B. FitzPatrick, R. R. W. Brady
Systematic review
Authors: H. K. James, A. W. Chapman, G. T. R. Pattison, D. R. Griffin, J. D. Fisher
Systematic review
Authors: J. H. H. Olsen, S. Öberg, K. Andresen, T. W. Klausen, J. Rosenberg
Original article
Authors: L. Heylen, J. Pirenne, U. Samuel, I. Tieken, M. Coemans, M. Naesens et al.
Original article
Authors: L. Cairncross, H. A. Snow, D. C. Strauss, M. J. F. Smith, O. Sjokvist, C. Messiou et al.
Original article
Authors: R. J. Dinsdale, J. Hazeldine, K. Al Tarrah, P. Hampson, A. Devi, C. Ermogenous et al.
Original article
Authors: C. A. Sewalt, E. Venema, E. J. A. Wiegers, F. E. Lecky, S. C. E. Schuit, D. den Hartog et al.
Article
Authors: A. M Lacy, R. Bravo, A. M. Otero‐Piñeiro, R. Pena, F. B. De Lacy, R. Menchaca et al.
Original article
Authors: P. Ghorbani, T. Troëng, O. Brattström, K. G. Ringdal, T. Eken, A. Ekbom et al.
Original article
Authors: E. H. Wright, M. Tyler, B. Vojnovic, J. Pleat, A. Harris, D. Furniss et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Patel, R. J. Egan, B. R. Carter, D. M. Scott‐Coombes, M. J. Stechman, A. Afzaal et al.