Abstract
The determination of Pass/Fail decisions over Borderline grades, (i.e., grades which do not clearly distinguish between the competent and incompetent examinees) has been an ongoing challenge for academic institutions. This study utilises the Objective Borderline Method (OBM) to determine examinee ability and item difficulty, and from that reclassifying each Borderline grade as a Pass or Fail. Using the OBM, examinees’ Borderline grades from a clinical examination were reclassified into Pass or Fail. The predictive validity of this method was estimated by comparing the examination original and reclassified grades to each other and to subsequent clinical examination results. The new model appeared as more stringent (p<.0001) than the original decisions. Implications for educators and policy makers are discussed. The OBM2 is found to provide a plausible solution for decision making over borderline grades in non-compensatory assessment systems.
Highlights
1.1 Standard Setting and Decision Making in Higher EducationOne of the most challenging tasks in clinical assessments is the Pass/Fail decision for borderline performance (Kramer et al, 2003; Patrício et al, 2009; Schoonheim-Klein et al, 2009; Shulruf, Turner, Poole, & Wilkinson, 2013; Wood, Humphrey-Murto, & Norman, 2006)
1.4 The Overarching Objectives of the Current Study The current study introduces a modification to the Objective Borderline Method (OBM) model which enables making pass/fail decisions for any types of marks as long as marks can be initially classified into three categories: Pass, Borderline and Fail and the number of Passes is greater than zero
The comparison of the Pass/Fail decisions of the Phase 1 clinical examination across the original grades indicates that the Objective Borderline Method 2 (OBM2) model was more stringent than the original decision, yet the decisions made by the OBM2 had high level of agreement with the “original decisions” (Accuracy=.88) (Table 3)
Summary
1.1 Standard Setting and Decision Making in Higher EducationOne of the most challenging tasks in clinical assessments is the Pass/Fail decision for borderline performance (Kramer et al, 2003; Patrício et al, 2009; Schoonheim-Klein et al, 2009; Shulruf, Turner, Poole, & Wilkinson, 2013; Wood, Humphrey-Murto, & Norman, 2006). The General Medical Council (2009a, 2009b) expressed its concerns about assessment and standard setting practices in medical programmes in the United Kingdom To address this critical issue a plethora of standard setting methods have been introduced and implemented in a range of clinical examinations (Boulet, De Champlain, & McKinley, 2003; Jalili, Hejri, & Norcini, 2011; Shulruf et al, 2013; Wass, Vleuten, Shatzer, & Jones, 2001; Wilkinson et al, 2001). Despite this range of methods concerns about reliability, validity and acceptability remain (Ben-David, 2000; Brannick, Erol-Korkmaz, & Prewett, 2011) within the context of clinical assessment where clinical examiners tend to avoid failing students and trainees (Cleland, Knight, Rees, Tracey, & Bond, 2008; Dudek, Marks, & Regehr, 2005; Morton, Cumming, & Cameron, 2007; Rees, Knight, & Cleland, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
