Problematizing the concept of the “borderline” group in performance assessments

References

• Ben-David MF. 2000. AMEE Guide No. 18: standard setting in student assessment. Med Teach. 22:120–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boscardin CK. 2012. Profiling students for remediation using latent class analysis. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 17:55–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boursicot KAM, Roberts TE, Pell G. 2007. Using borderline methods to compare passing standards for OSCEs at graduation across three medical schools. Med Educ. 41:1024–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chahine S, Holmes B, Kowalewski Z. 2015. In the minds of OSCE examiners: uncovering hidden assumptions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 21:609–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cizek GJ, editor. 2012. Setting performance standards: foundations, methods, and innovations. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cizek GJ, Bunch MB. 2007. Standard setting a guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests [Internet]. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; [cited 2013 Aug 21]. Available from: http://SRMO.sagepub.com/view/standard-setting/SAGE.xml.
   Google Scholar
• Clauser BE, Mee J, Baldwin SG, Margolis MJ, Dillon GF. 2009. Judges’ use of examinee performance data in an Angoff standard-setting exercise for a medical licensing examination: an experimental study. J Educ Meas. 46:390–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cookson J, Crossley J, Fagan G, McKendree J, Mohsen A. 2011. A final clinical examination using a sequential design to improve cost-effectiveness. Med Educ. 45:741–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emons WHM, Sijtsma K, Meijer RR. 2007. On the consistency of individual classification using short scales. Psychol Methods. 12:105–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eva KW, Neville AJ, Norman GR. 1998. Exploring the etiology of content specificity: factors influencing analogic transfer and problem solving. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 73:S1–S5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmer EA, Page G. 2005. A practical guide to assessing clinical decision-making skills using the key features approach. Med Educ. 39:1188–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller R, Homer M, Pell G. 2013. Longitudinal interrelationships of OSCE station level analyses, quality improvement and overall reliability. Med Teach. 35:515–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govaerts MJB. 2016. Competence in assessment: beyond cognition. Med Educ. 50:502–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays R, Gupta TS, Veitch J. 2008. The practical value of the standard error of measurement in borderline pass/fail decisions. Med Educ. 42:810–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homer M, Pell G, Fuller R. 2015. Identifying "borderline" students in performance assessments – what does the empirical evidence say?
   Google Scholar
• Homer M, Pell G, Fuller R, Patterson J. 2016. Quantifying error in OSCE standard setting for varying cohort sizes: a resampling approach to measuring assessment quality. Med Teach. 38:181–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer A, Muijtjens A, Jansen K, Düsman H, Tan L, Van Der Vleuten C. 2003. Comparison of a rational and an empirical standard setting procedure for an OSCE. Objective structured clinical examinations. Med Educ. 37:132–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livingston SA, Zieky MJ. 1982. Passing Scores: A Manual for Setting Standards of Performance on Educational and Occupational Tests. [Internet]. [cited 2015 Mar 19]. Available from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED227113
   Google Scholar
• Margolis MJ, Clauser BE. 2014. The impact of examinee performance information on judges’ cut scores in modified Angoff Standard-Setting exercises. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 33:15–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis MJ, Mee J, Clauser BE, Winward M, Clauser JC. 2016. Effect of content knowledge on Angoff-Style Standard Setting judgments. Educ Meas Issues Pract [Internet]. [cited 2016 Feb 15]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12104/abstract
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattick K, Dennis I, Bradley P, Bligh J. 2008. Content specificity: is it the full story? Statistical modelling of a clinical skills examination. Med Educ. 42:589–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinley DW, Norcini JJ. 2014. How to set standards on performance-based examinations: AMEE Guide No. 85. Med Teach. 36:97–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcini JJ. 2003. Setting standards on educational tests. Med Educ. 37:464–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman G, Bordage G, Page G, Keane D. 2006. How specific is case specificity? Med Educ. 40:618–623.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pell G, Fuller R, Homer M, Roberts T. 2010. How to measure the quality of the OSCE: a review of metrics – AMEE guide no. 49. Med Teach. 32:802–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pell G, Fuller R, Homer M, Roberts T. 2013. Advancing the objective structured clinical examination: sequential testing in theory and practice. Med Educ. 47:569–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pell G, Homer M, Fuller R. 2015. Investigating disparity between global grades and checklist scores in OSCEs. Med Teach. 37:1106–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pell G, Roberts TE. 2006. Setting standards for student assessment. Int J Res Method Educ. 29:91–103.
   Google Scholar
• Reznick RK, Blackmore D, Dauphinée WD, Rothman AI, Smee S. 1996. Large-scale high-stakes testing with an OSCE: report from the Medical Council of Canada. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 71:S19–S21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler DR. 2009. Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assess Eval High Educ. 34:159–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulruf B, Poole P, Jones P, Wilkinson T. 2015. The Objective Borderline method: a probabilistic method for standard setting. Assess Eval High Educ. 40:420–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulruf B, Turner R, Poole P, Wilkinson T. 2013. The Objective Borderline method (OBM): a probability-based model for setting up an objective pass/fail cut-off score in medical programme assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 18:231–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St-Onge C, Chamberland M, Lévesque A, Varpio L. 2015. Expectations, observations, and the cognitive processes that bind them: expert assessment of examinee performance. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 21:627–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templin J, Jiao H. 2012. Applying model-based approaches to identifying Performance Categories. In: Cizek, Gregory J, editor. Setting performance standards: foundations, methods, and innovations, 2nd ed. New York (NY): Routledge; p. 379–398.
   Google Scholar
• Tweed M, Wilkinson TJ. 2010. Should there be borderline candidates or should there be a zone of uncertainty around assessment decisions? Med Teach. 32:869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wainer H, Feinberg R. 2015. For want of a nail: why unnecessarily long tests may be impeding the progress of Western civilisation? Significance 12:16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Wimmers PF, Fung C-C. 2008. The impact of case specificity and generalisable skills on clinical performance: a correlated traits-correlated methods approach. Med Educ. 42:580–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmers PF, Splinter TAW, Hancock GR, Schmidt HG. 2007. Clinical competence: general ability or case-specific? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 12:299–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood TJ, Humphrey-Murto SM, Norman GR. 2006. Standard setting in a small scale OSCE: a comparison of the modified borderline-group method and the borderline regression method. Adv Health Sci Educ. 11:115–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorke M. 2011a. Assessing the complexity of professional achievement. In: Jackson N, editor. Learning to be professional through a higher education. London: Sceptre.
   Google Scholar
• Yorke M. 2011b. Summative assessment: dealing with the "measurement fallacy.". Stud High Educ. 36:251–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar