Setting the Passing Standard for the National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses

Wendt, Anne; Kenny, Lorraine

doi:10.1097/01.nne.0000270234.99531.07

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most high‐stakes assessment programs attempt to limit item exposure by developing and administering multiple forms of a given examination or by employing item selection algorithms that prevent examinees from being presented items they were given on previous administrations (Davey & Nering, 2002; Wendt & Harris, 2004). One reason for these precautions is to hinder the efforts of examinees who try to remember and share test content with others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Same‐Form Retest Effects on Credentialing Examinations

Raymond

Neustel

Anderson

2009

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examinees who take high‐stakes assessments are usually given an opportunity to repeat the test if they are unsuccessful on their initial attempt. To prevent examinees from obtaining unfair score increases by memorizing the content of specific test items, testing agencies usually assign a different test form to repeat examinees. The use of multiple forms is expensive and can present psychometric challenges, particularly for low‐volume credentialing programs; thus, it is important to determine if unwarranted score gains actually occur. Prior studies provide strong evidence that the same‐form advantage is pronounced for aptitude tests. However, the sparse research within the context of achievement and credentialing testing suggests that the same‐form advantage is minimal. For the present experiment, 541 examinees who failed a national certification test were randomly assigned to receive either the same test or a different (parallel) test on their second attempt. Although the same‐form group had shorter response times on the second administration, score gains for the two groups were indistinguishable. We discuss factors that may limit the generalizability of these findings to other assessment contexts.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Same‐Form Retest Effects on Credentialing Examinations

Raymond

Neustel

Anderson

2009

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A particularly popular procedure is first using a test‐centered standard‐setting activity, conducting a compromise activity after that, and presenting the results of both to the advisory panel to make a recommendation. Several credentialing organizations, including the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (O'Neill, Marks, & Reynolds, ; Wendt & Kenny, ), the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (), and the American Board of Family Medicine () use the Angoff method in combination with the Hofstee and/or Beuk methods. Using the Angoff and Hofstee methods is also common in medical education programs (see Cusimano & Rothman, ; Fielding et al., ; Stern et al., ; Wayne et al., ).…”

Section: Multiple Methods In Standard Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Undefined Cut Scores With the Hofstee Standard‐Setting Method

Wyse

Babcock

2017

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an overview of the Hofstee standard‐setting method and illustrates several situations where the Hofstee method will produce undefined cut scores. The situations where the cut scores will be undefined involve cases where the line segment derived from the Hofstee ratings does not intersect the score distribution curve based on actual exam performance data. Data from 15 standard settings performed by a credentialing organization are used to investigate how common undefined cut scores are with the Hofstee method and to compare cut scores derived from the Hofstee method with those from the Beuk method. Results suggest that when Hofstee cut scores exist that the Hofstee and Beuk methods often yield fairly similar results. However, it is shown that undefined Hofstee cut scores did occur in a few situations. When Hofstee cut scores are undefined, it is suggested that one extend the Hofstee line segment so that it intersects the score distribution curve to estimate cut scores. Analyses show that extending the line segment to estimate cut scores often yields similar results to the Beuk method. The article concludes with a discussion of what these results may imply for people who want to employ the Hofstee method.

show abstract

“…with integrated teaching and learning should use integrated assessment methods and involve faculty from different subjects and specialties and, the criterion-reference standard setting ensures it is being done properly and effectively. [2][3][4][5][6] The main criticism of the criterion-method is the concept of 'borderline candidate' but none of the assessment methods would be complete without incorporating subjectivity within the objectivity. The teachers, facilitators and faculty involved in the teaching and learning methods can easily think of those students who "may pass or fail" based on their own experience, which then becomes the basis for defining and defending the 'borderline candidates'.…”

Section: 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most popular and recommended compromised methods are Hoftsee 2 and Buek. 6 Another popular method of standard setting is "borderline method" and is usually done after the test.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%