# _Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation Mastery Learning in Health Professions Educations Chapter 6: Standard Setting_ ## Review 2021_07_28 ## hook: _[Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation Mastery Learning in Health Professions Educations.pdf](hook://file/zlbP7zb7h?p=Q2VudGVyIEZvciBNZWRpY2FsIFNpbXVsYXRpb24vQXJ0aWNsZXM=&n=Comprehensive%20Healthcare%20Simulation%20Mastery%20Learning%20in%20Health%20Professions%20Educations.pdf)_ ## Authors: _ Diane B. Wayne, Elaine R. Cohen, and Jeffrey H. Barsuk__ # Review ## Bottom Line: Because ML is predicated on outcome-based and all students should get to mastery, standard setting should not be normative but instead should be based on **criterion** that all learners can achieve ## Overview: 4 Basic Methods of standard setting - Angoff: Imagine an borderline participant, what would the standard be for them to have a 50/50 chance of passing? - Hoffstee: Judges are asked four questions: (a) What is the minimum acceptable passing score? (b) What is the maximum acceptable passing score? (c) What is the minimum acceptable failure rate? (d) What is the maximum acceptable failure rate? - Mastery Angoff: Imagine a competent participant, what would be the standard for a 50/50 chance of passing - Patient Safety Method: What are the critical (cannot fail) steps, those are mandatory. ## Implementing Standard Setting - Get 8-12 experts from different domains who frequently evaluate the thing together for an hour - Have the data from your pilot available and show to the experts - Employ the above method(s) - Decide on the criteria, often will be a mixed outcome such as: - 92% PLUS a global score of "competent" AND do not miss any items deemed mandatory from a patient safety evaluation ## Meaning Making - It will be best to run several pilots and have the scores from those pilots prior to standard setting - This will require the checklist/scale be well developed prior to the standard setting - The people doing the grading should NOT be involved in the standard setting