PurposeThe purpose of this study was to apply alternative standard setting methods for the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE), a criterion-referenced written examination, and to compare them to the conventional cut score used on the KMLE.MethodsThe process and results of criterion-referenced standard settings (i.e., the modified-Angoff and bookmark methods) were evaluated. The ratio of passing and failing examinees determined using these alternative standard setting methods was compared to the results of the conventional criteria. Additionally, the external, internal and procedural evaluation of these methods were reviewed.ResultsThe modified-Angoff method yielded the highest cut score, followed sequentially by the conventional method and the bookmark method. The classification agreement between the modified-Angoff and bookmark methods was 0.720 measured by Cohen’s κ coefficient. The intra-panelist classification consistency of modified-Angoff method was higher than bookmark method. However, the inter-panelist classification consistency was vice versa. The standard setting panelists’ survey results showed that the procedures of both methods were satisfactory, but panelists had more confidence in the results of the modified-Angoff method.ConclusionThe modified-Angoff method showed results that were more similar to those of the conventional method. Both new methods showed very high concordance with the conventional method, as well as with each other. The modified-Angoff method was considered feasible for adoption on the KMLE. The standard setting panelists responded positively to the modified-Angoff method in terms of its practical applicability, despite certain advantages of the bookmark method.

Purpose: The Korea Medical Licensing Exam (KMLE) typically contains a large number of items. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in the cut score between evaluating all items of the exam and evaluating only some items when conducting standard-setting.Methods: We divided the item sets that appeared on 3 recent KMLEs for the past 3 years into 4 subsets of each year of 25% each based on their item content categories, discrimination index, and difficulty index. The entire panel of 15 members assessed all the items (360 items, 100%) of the year 2017. In split-half set 1, each item set contained 184 (51%) items of year 2018 and each set from split-half set 2 contained 182 (51%) items of the year 2019 using the same method. We used the modified Angoff, modified Ebel, and Hofstee methods in the standard-setting process.Results: Less than a 1% cut score difference was observed when the same method was used to stratify item subsets containing 25%, 51%, or 100% of the entire set. When rating fewer items, higher rater reliability was observed.Conclusion: When the entire item set was divided into equivalent subsets, assessing the exam using a portion of the item set (90 out of 360 items) yielded similar cut scores to those derived using the entire item set. There was a higher correlation between panelists’ individual assessments and the overall assessments.

The aim of this study was to investigate respondents’ satisfaction with smart device-based testing (SBT), as well as its convenience and advantages, in order to improve its implementation. The survey was conducted among 108 junior medical students at Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Korea, who took a practice licensing examination using SBT in September 2015. The survey contained 28 items scored using a 5-point Likert scale. The items were divided into the following three categories: satisfaction with SBT administration, convenience of SBT features, and advantages of SBT compared to paper-and-pencil testing or computer-based testing. The reliability of the survey was 0.95. Of the three categories, the convenience of the SBT features received the highest mean (M) score (M= 3.75, standard deviation [SD]= 0.69), while the category of satisfaction with SBT received the lowest (M= 3.13, SD= 1.07). No statistically significant differences across these categories with respect to sex, age, or experience were observed. These results indicate that SBT was practical and effective to take and to administer.

Purpose: This study explored the possibility of using the Angoff method, in which panel experts determine the cut score of an exam, for the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination (KNLE). Two mock exams for the KNLE were analyzed. The Angoff standard setting procedure was conducted and the results were analyzed. We also aimed to examine the procedural validity of applying the Angoff method in this context.Methods: For both mock exams, we set a pass-fail cut score using the Angoff method. The standard setting panel consisted of 16 nursing professors. After the Angoff procedure, the procedural validity of establishing the standard was evaluated by investigating the responses of the standard setters.Results: The descriptions of the minimally competent person for the KNLE were presented at the levels of general and subject performance. The cut scores of first and second mock exams were 74.4 and 76.8, respectively. These were higher than the traditional cut score (60% of the total score of the KNLE). The panel survey showed very positive responses, with scores higher than 4 out of 5 points on a Likert scale.Conclusion: The scores calculated for both mock tests were similar, and were much higher than the existing cut scores. In the second simulation, the standard deviation of the Angoff rating was lower than in the first simulation. According to the survey results, procedural validity was acceptable, as shown by a high level of confidence. The results show that determining cut scores by an expert panel is an applicable method.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the possible standard-setting methods for the Korean Radiological Technologist Licensing Examination, which has a fixed cut score, and to suggest the most appropriate method. Methods: Six radiological technology professors set standards for 250 items on the Korean Radiological Technologist Licensing Examination administered in December 2016 using the Angoff, Ebel, bookmark, and Hofstee methods. Results: With a maximum percentile score of 100, the cut score for the examination was 71.27 using the Angoff method, 62.2 using the Ebel method, 64.49 using the bookmark method, and 62 using the Hofstee method. Based on the Hofstee method, an acceptable cut score for the examination would be between 52.83 and 70, but the cut score was 71.27 using the Angoff method. Conclusion: The above results suggest that the best standard-setting method to determine the cut score would be a panel discussion with the modified Angoff or Ebel method, with verification of the rated results by the Hofstee method. Since no standard-setting method has yet been adopted for the Korean Radiological Technologist Licensing Examination, this study will be able to provide practical guidance for introducing a standard-setting process.