Feedback to support examiners’ understanding of the standard-setting process and the performance of students: AMEE Guide No. 145

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Mohsen Tavakol ◽  
Brigitte E. Scammell ◽  
Angela P. Wetzel
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
Setting Process

Acid-Causing Emission Standards in Alberta: The Standard-Setting Process, Enforcement and Forums

1985 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Shelley N. Phillips ◽  
Gale L. Pretash
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Input ◽  
Emission Standards ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Scientific Analysis

The implementation and enforcement of standards regulating acid-causing emissions in Alberta are examined in this paper. Also addressed are the available forums for public input, the need for further scientific analysis and better communication between government, industry and the public.

The Development of Auditing Standards at the PCAOB and Related Audit Practitioner Input

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Tyler Williams ◽  
W. Mark Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
The Public ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Standard ◽  
Comment Letters ◽  
Feedback Responses

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB; Board) maintains that constituent feedback plays an essential and dynamic role in its audit standard-setting process. We examine a major source of constituent feedback, responses to standard-setting questions, using a sample drawn from the original proposals of fourteen PCAOB auditing standards. We find that after receiving comment letter feedback to the standard-setting questions, the Board revises approximately half of its guidance tied to those questions before it finalizes auditing standards-a finding consistent with the Board's assertion that it carefully considers constituent perspectives as it develops new regulation. We also explore the related comment letters of eight professional auditing firms subject to the PCAOB's annual inspection program and discover varying levels of opposition to and support for the PCAOB's proposed authoritative guidance. We observe PCAOB revision to authoritative guidance highly contested by the firms in more than three-fourths of cases of standard-setting questions and PCAOB non-revision to guidance highly supported by the firms in more than ninety percent of cases.

The domain expert perspective: A qualitative study into the views expressed in a standard-setting exercise on a language for specific purposes (LSP) test for health professionals

2021 ◽  
pp. 026553222110107
Author(s):  
Simon Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Proficiency Test ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Domain Expert ◽  
Verbal Reports ◽  
Domain Experts ◽  
Language For Specific Purposes ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Test Criteria ◽  
Textual Features

This paper investigates what matters to medical domain experts when setting standards on a language for specific purposes (LSP) English proficiency test: the Occupational English Test’s (OET) writing sub-test. The study explores what standard-setting participants value when making performance judgements about test candidates’ writing responses, and the extent to which their decisions are language-based and align with the OET writing sub-test criteria. Qualitative data is a relatively under-utilized component of standard setting and this type of commentary was garnered to gain a better understanding of the basis for performance decisions. Eighteen doctors were recruited for standard-setting workshops. To gain further insight, verbal reports in the form of a think-aloud protocol (TAP) were employed with five of the 18 participants. The doctors’ comments were thematically coded and the analysis showed that participants’ standard-setting judgements often aligned with the OET writing sub-test criteria. An overarching theme, ‘Audience Recognition’, was also identified as valuable to participants. A minority of decisions were swayed by features outside the OET’s communicative construct (e.g., clinical competency). Yet, overall, findings indicated that domain experts were undeniably focused on textual features associated with what the test is designed to assess and their views were vitally important in the standard-setting process.

scholarly journals The OSHA Standard Setting Process

AAOHN Journal ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 374-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn S. Klinger ◽  
Mary Lou Jones
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
Setting Process
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document