Comparison of two standard-setting methods for advanced cardiac life support training.
BACKGROUND
This study used the Angoff and Hofstee standard-setting methods to derive minimum passing scores for six advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) procedures.


METHODS
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.


CONCLUSIONS
Systematic standard setting for ACLS procedures is a necessary step toward the creation of mastery learning educational programs.
Wayne
Diane B
DB
MD, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Galter 3-150, 251 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. dwayne@northwestern.edu
Fudala
Monica J
MJ
Butter
John
J
Siddall
Viva J
VJ
Feinglass
Joe
J
Wade
Leonard D
LD
McGaghie
William C
WC
D022561:Advanced Cardiac Life Support / Q000193:education*; D002641:Chicago; D004521:Educational Measurement / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007388:Internal Medicine / Q000193:education; D007396:Internship and Residency