Comparing the passing rates of nursing students participating in the objective structured clinical examination using fixed score, Angoff, yes/no Angoff, and 3-level Angoff methods†

Maghsoodi, Fatemeh; Yazdankhahfard, Mohammadreza; Pouladi, Shahnaz; Mirzaei, Kamran; Beigzadeh, Amin

doi:10.2478/fon-2025-0056

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the frequency of passing scores of nursing students participating in objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) by 4 methods of fixed score, Angoff, yes/no Angoff, and 3-level Angoff. The OSCE is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the competency of nursing students. To have a fair judgment in OSCE, it is important to determine the standard setting.

Methods

In this descriptive-analytical study, which was conducted in 2022, the 7-station OSCE scores and the passing rates of students were compared based on fixed score, Angoff, yes/no Angoff, and the 3-level Angoff by a panel of experts. The research population included nursing teachers (n = 13) and nursing students (n = 65). Due to the small number of participants, the number of samples in each of these 2 groups was equal to the total number of people in the research population.

Results

Findings revealed that of the 13 nursing teachers who participated in the study, the majority were female and had a master’s degree. Among the 65 students taking part in OSCE, the majority were males. Results showed that the passing rate varied depending on the type of OSCE station and the standard-setting methods used. Differences in some cases were statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Findings suggest that the frequency of passing can vary depending on the method used. It is advisable to consider the average score from multiple methods to accurately determine the passing rate and achieve a more accurate acceptance rate.

References

French S, Dickerson A, Mulder RA. A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education. High Educ. 2024;88:893–918.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boud D, Falchikov N. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assess Eval High Educ. 2006;31:399–413.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prakash Jyoti, Chatterjee K, Srivastava K, et al. Workplace based assessment: a review of available tools and their relevance. Industrial Psychiatry Journal. 2020;29:200–204.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pront L, McNeill L. Nursing students’ perceptions of a clinical learning assessment activity: ‘linking the puzzle pieces of theory to practice’. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019;36:85–90.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brannick MT, Erol-Korkmaz HT, Prewett M. A systematic review of the reliability of objective structured clinical examination scores. Med Educ. 2011;45:1181–1189.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maghsoodi F, YazdanFard M, Pouladi S, et al. Using the methods of fixed score, Angoff, yes/no Angoff and three-level Angoff to determine the standard and acceptance rate of nursing students participating in an objective structured clinical exam. Iran J Med Educ. 2023;23:217–224 (in Persian).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dewan P, Khalil S, Gupta P. Objective structured clinical examination for teaching and assessment: evidence-based critique. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2024;25:101477.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chabrera C, Diago E, Curell L. Development, validity and reliability of objective structured clinical examination in nursing students. SAGE Open Nurs. 2023;9:1–8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cowan DT, Norman I, Coopamah VP. Competence in nursing practice: a controversial concept - A focused review of literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2005;25:355–362.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jalili M, Mortazhejri S. Standard setting for objective structured clinical exam using four methods: prefixed score Angoff borderline regression and cohens. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2012;9:77–84 (in Persian).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boursicot KA, Roberts TE, Pell G. Using borderline methods to compare passing standards for OSCEs at graduation across three medical schools. Med Educ. 2007;41:1024–1031.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kilminster S, Roberts T. Standard setting for OSCEs: trial of borderline approach. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9:201–209.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reid KJ, Dodds A. Comparing the borderline group and borderline regression approaches to setting Objective Structured Clinical Examination cut scores. J Contemp Med Edu. 2014;2:8–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schoonheim-Klein M, Muijtjens A, Habets L, et al. Who will pass the dental OSCE? Comparison of the Angoff and the borderline regression standard setting methods. Eur J Dent Educ. 2009;13:162–171.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cizek GJ, Bunch MB. Standard Setting: A Guide to Establishing and Evaluating Performance Standards for Tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007:5–11.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ho TK, Abu Kassim NL, O’Malley L, et al. Standard setting for dental knowledge tests: reproducibility of the modified Angoff and Ebel method across judges. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25:1–13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dwyer T, Wright S, Kulasegaram KM, et al. How to set the bar in competency-based medical education: standard setting after an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kramer A, Muijtjens A, Jansen K, et al. Comparison of a rational and an empirical standard setting procedure for an OSCE. Med Educ. 2003;37: 132–139.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jalili M, Hejri SM, Norcini JJ. Comparison of two methods of standard setting: the performance of the three-level Angoff method. Med Educ. 2011;45:1199–1208.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Park J. Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cut score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:1–9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hejri SM, Jalili M, Muijtjens AM, et al. Assessing the reliability of the borderline regression method as a standard setting procedure for objective structured clinical examination. J Res Med Sci. 2013;18:887–891.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dwivedi NR, Vijayashankar NP, Hansda M, et al. Comparing standard setting methods for objective structured clinical examinations in a caribbean medical school. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:1–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yim MK, Shin S. Using the Angoff method to set a standard on mock exams for the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2020;17:14.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kaufman DM, Mann KV, Muijtjens AM, et al. A comparison of standard-setting procedures for an OSCE in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2000;75:267–271.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article