Abstract
PurposeThis 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. MethodsSix 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. ResultsWith 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. ConclusionThe 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.
Highlights
A licensing examination evaluates whether a licensee has appropriate skills in the field after earning a license
Based on a total score of 100, the cut scores assigned by the radiologists were 71.27 using the Angoff method, 62.2 using the Ebel method, 62.49 using the bookmark method, and 62 using the Hofstee method (Appendices 1–4)
The cut scores according to the Ebel and bookmark methods were similar, but those according to the Angoff and Hofstee methods were significantly different
Summary
A licensing examination evaluates whether a licensee has appropriate skills in the field after earning a license. The criteria for passing the written component of the Korean Radiological Technologist Licensing Examination (KRTLE) are 60% or higher of the total possible score for all subjects and 40% or higher for each subject. These criteria do not consider the quality and level of difficulty of the items or information about the candidates. In this situation, it can be argued that passing the national examination may not guarantee the minimum competence required by the licensing examination. It is necessary to identify various methods that can be applied to changing examination forms
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
