Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 1256974
What should the standard be for passing and mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health Test? A consensus study
What should the standard be for passing and mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health Test? A consensus study // BMJ Open, 13(2) (2023), e066890; 1-7 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066890 (međunarodna recenzija, članak, znanstveni)
CROSBI ID: 1256974 Za ispravke kontaktirajte CROSBI podršku putem web obrasca
Naslov
What should the standard be for passing and
mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health
Test? A consensus study
Autori
Nsangi, Allen ; Aranza, Diana ; Asimwe, Roger ; Kyomuhendo Munaabi-Babigumira, Susa ; Nantongo, Judith ; Nordheim, Lena Victoria ; Ochieng, Robert ; Oyuga, Cyril ; Uwimana, Innocent ; Dahlgren, Astrid ; Oxman, Andrew
Izvornik
BMJ Open (2044-6055) 13(2)
(2023), E066890;
1-7
Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, znanstveni
Ključne riječi
community child health ; education & training (see medical education & training) ; health services administration & management ; medical education & training ; public health
Sažetak
Objective: Most health literacy measures rely on subjective self-assessment. The Critical Thinking about Health Test is an objective measure that includes two multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for each of the nine Informed Health Choices Key Concepts included in the educational resources for secondary schools. The objective of this study was to determine cut-off scores for passing (the border between having and not having a basic understanding and the ability to apply the nine concepts) and mastery (the border between having mastered and not having mastered them). Design: Using a combination of two widely used methods: Angoff's and Nedelsky's, a panel judged the likelihood that an individual on the border of passing and another on the border of having mastered the concepts would answer each MCQ correctly. The cut-off scores were determined by summing up the probability of answering each MCQ correctly. Their independent assessments were summarised and discussed. A nominal group technique was used to reach a consensus. Setting: The study was conducted in secondary schools in East Africa. Participants: The panel included eight individuals with 5 or more years' experience in the following areas: evaluation of critical thinking interventions, curriculum development, teaching of lower secondary school and evidence- informed decision-making. Results: The panel agreed that for a passing score, students had to answer 9 of the 18 questions and for a mastery score, 14 out of 18 questions correctly. Conclusion: There was wide variation in the judgements made by individual panel members for many of the questions, but they quickly reached a consensus on the cut-off scores after discussions.
Izvorni jezik
Engleski
Znanstvena područja
Kliničke medicinske znanosti
POVEZANOST RADA
Ustanove:
Sveučilište u Splitu Sveučilišni odjel zdravstvenih studija
Profili:
Diana Aranza
(autor)
Citiraj ovu publikaciju:
Časopis indeksira:
- Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC)
- Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXP)
- SCI-EXP, SSCI i/ili A&HCI
- Scopus
- MEDLINE