Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026

Validation of a Psychosocial Intervention on Body Image in Older People: An Experimental Design
Published on: May 31, 2021
Secure AI-assisted angoff standard-setting for single best answer questions: A non-inferiority validation study
Edward Stephenson1,2, Sarah Robinson1, Kate Bascombe1
1Department of Medical Education, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Background:
The Angoff method sets exam pass scores using expert estimates of the probability that a borderline candidate will answer each question correctly; this process is time-intensive and variable. We evaluated whether AI-derived Angoff estimates are non-inferior to human judgements for single best answer (SBA) questions using a secure offline question feature-extraction tool.
Methods:
We conducted a methodological study in a UK Physician Associate programme. A faculty survey informed a borderline Year-2 student descriptor. ExamFeats, a secure offline tool, extracted surface features from 1,003 historical and 100 new SBAs. Three AI models were evaluated: (A) a large language model (LLM) using extracted features and the borderline-student descriptor; (B) a machine-learning model (ML) using ridge regression and (C) a hybrid combining LLM and ML predictions. Human Angoff ratings for the 100 new items were averaged across 3-4 faculty members. The primary outcome was the mean difference between AI and human Angoff scores, assessed against a prespecified 10% non-inferiority margin, with additional analysis of discordant items (>10% difference).
Results:
For the 100 new SBAs, human Angoff estimates and all AI models produced closely aligned distributions, with minimal systematic differences. The human mean Angoff score was 60.3%, while Model A, Model B and Model C produced mean estimates of 60.8%, 60.0% and 60.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences between models (p = 0.41) and 95% confidence-intervals lay within the non-inferiority margin. Discordance between human and model prediction occurred in 33% of SBAs but this was not explained by differences in extracted surface item features.
Conclusions:
AI-derived Angoff estimates reproduced panel-level Angoff behaviour within the prespecified error bounds and could reduce the time and cognitive burden of standard setting. The secure feature-extraction tool enabled AI-assisted standard setting without sharing item text. However, question-level discordance indicates that AI should augment rather than replace expert panels.
Related Concept Videos
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
One-Way ANOVA: Equal Sample Sizes
Different sample means can result in different values for the variance estimate: variance between samples. This is because the variance between samples is calculated as the product of the sample size and the variance between the...
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
One-Way ANOVA: Unequal Sample Sizes
Strategies of Self-Presentation II: Self-Verification
Bonferroni Test
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...