Have a personal or library account? Click to login
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† Cover

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†

Open Access
|Jan 2026

References

  1. 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.
  2. Boud D, Falchikov N. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assess Eval High Educ. 2006;31:399–413.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. Dewan P, Khalil S, Gupta P. Objective structured clinical examination for teaching and assessment: evidence-based critique. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2024;25:101477.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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).
  11. 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.
  12. Kilminster S, Roberts T. Standard setting for OSCEs: trial of borderline approach. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9:201–209.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Cizek GJ, Bunch MB. Standard Setting: A Guide to Establishing and Evaluating Performance Standards for Tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007:5–11.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2025-0056 | Journal eISSN: 2544-8994 | Journal ISSN: 2097-5368
Language: English
Page range: 511 - 518
Submitted on: Nov 25, 2024
|
Accepted on: Jan 26, 2025
|
Published on: Jan 27, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2026 Fatemeh Maghsoodi, Mohammadreza Yazdankhahfard, Shahnaz Pouladi, Kamran Mirzaei, Amin Beigzadeh, published by Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.