{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02286902286902287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002079002079002079, 'mean_word_length': 5.361233480176211, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Feedback to support examiners’ understanding of the standard-setting process and the performance of students: AMEE Guide No. 145

Abstract The ratings that judges or examiners use for determining pass marks and students' performance on OSCEs serve a number of essential functions in medical education assessment, and their validity is a pivotal issue. However, some types of errors often occur in ratings that require special efforts to minimise. Rater characteristics (e.g. generosity error, severity error, central tendency error or halo error) may present a source of performance irrelevant variance. Prior literature shows the fundamental problems in student performance measurement attached to judges’ or examiners’ errors. It also indicates that the control of such errors supports a robust and credible pass mark and thus, accurate student marks. Therefore, for a standard-setter who identifies the pass mark and an examiner who rates student performance in OSCEs, proper, user-friendly feedback on their standard-setting and ratings is essential for reducing bias. This feedback provides useful avenues for understanding why performance ratings may be irregular and how to improve the quality of ratings. This AMEE Guide discusses various methods of feedback to support examiners' understanding of the performance of students and the standard-setting process with an effort to make inferences from assessments fair, valid and reliable.