Comparison of two standard-setting methods for advanced cardiac life support training

Diane B. Wayne*, Monica J. Fudala, John Butter, Viva J. Siddall, Joe Feinglass, Leonard D. Wade, William C. McGaghie

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

51 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: This study used the Angoff and Hofstee standard-setting methods to derive minimum passing scores for six advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) procedures. Method: An expert panel provided item-based (Angoff) and group-based (Hofstee) judgments about six ACLS performance checklists on two occasions separated by ten weeks. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) of the judgments were calculated. Derived ACLS passing standards are compared to historical ACLS performance data from two groups of ACLS-trained internal medicine residents. Results: Both the Angoff and Hofstee standard-setting methods produced reliable and stable data. Hofstee minimum passing scores (MPSs) were uniformly more stringent than Angoff MPSs. Interpretation of historical ACLS performance data from medical residents shows the MPSs derived in this study would yield higher-than-expected failure rates. Conclusion: Systematic standard setting for ACLS procedures is a necessary step toward the creation of mastery learning educational programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S63-S66
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume80
Issue number10 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2005

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of two standard-setting methods for advanced cardiac life support training'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this