Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Standard setting: comparison of two methods.

Sanju George1, M Sayeed Haque, Femi Oyebode

  • 1Queen Elizabeth Psychiatric Hospital, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. sanju.george@talk21.com

BMC Medical Education
|September 16, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Factors associated with treatment-resistant hypertension: results of a prospective observational study.

Journal of hypertension·2025
Same author

The value of mental science: we publish what matters.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2025
Same author

Cotard's: a controlled single case study of putative perceptual, cognitive and psychological risk factors.

Neurocase·2024
Same author

Development of a quality of life measure for left ventricular assist device recipients using a mixed methods approach.

ESC heart failure·2024
Same author

Narrative Matters: Ursula Le Guin's writings and adolescence.

Child and adolescent mental health·2024
Same author

Pharmacist management of atrial fibrillation in UK primary care: a cross-sectional study.

Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice·2024
Same journal

Dental school caries and periodontitis risk analysis skillset: survey of carryover to practice.

BMC medical education·2026
Same journal

Understanding mental health challenges in health students.

BMC medical education·2026
Same journal

Student-generated learning materials as active learning: a qualitative study of midwifery students' experiences.

BMC medical education·2026
Same journal

Point-of-care ultrasound tele-didactic teaching for prehospital emergency personnel (POCUS TT study): a randomized non-inferiority trial.

BMC medical education·2026
Same journal

Application of case-based learning combined with three-dimensional image reconstruction technology in clinical teaching of liver ultrasound.

BMC medical education·2026
Same journal

Development and validation of the SMART-BPPV: a multimedia learning module for BPPV education.

BMC medical education·2026
See all related articles

Comparing standard-setting methods in medical education reveals significant differences. The modified Angoff method showed good inter-rater reliability but moderate test-retest reliability for multiple-choice assessments.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Education
  • Assessment Methods
  • Psychometrics

Background:

  • Assessment outcomes depend heavily on the chosen standard-setting method.
  • Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced methods are prevalent in UK undergraduate medical education.
  • The modified Angoff method is a widely used criterion-referenced technique.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare norm-referenced and modified Angoff standard-setting methods for a multiple-choice question (MCQ) examination.
  • To evaluate the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the modified Angoff method in medical education.

Main Methods:

  • Applied norm-referenced standard-setting (mean minus 1 SD) to MCQ scores of 78 medical students.
  • Utilized two rater panels to apply the modified Angoff method on two separate occasions (6 months apart).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Compared pass/fail rates and assessed reliability metrics for both methods.

    • Main Results:

    • The norm-referenced method yielded an 85% pass rate, while the modified Angoff method resulted in a 100% pass rate.
    • Inter-rater reliability for the modified Angoff method was high (0.81-0.82).
    • Test-retest reliability for the modified Angoff method was moderate (0.59-0.74).

    Conclusions:

    • Significant discrepancies exist between norm-referenced and modified Angoff methods regarding assessment outcomes.
    • The modified Angoff method demonstrates strong inter-rater reliability.
    • The modified Angoff method exhibits moderate test-retest reliability, suggesting potential variability over time.