Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. A number of standard setting methods are in use with their own strengths and limitations. Angoff is a popular method worldwide but very demanding on resources. This paper explores if the judgement of the Angoff panels of judges can been explained by post-hoc psychometrics. Furthermore the paper examines if such correlations can be used to standard set exam papers based on their psychometric item difficulty and discrimination index.
Highlights
Methods of standard setting have evolved during the past five decades, ensuring examinees experience fairer examinations
If the process is done remotely, as it is done in our School of Dentistry (SoD), there will be question items that require discussion and the time saved by the remote process is spent on discussing the items with high variability between the judges’ scores
The compromised methods of standard setting, on the other hand, aim to take advantage of the ‘relativeness’ of the data produced by the performance of the cohorts of the examinees and at the same time aim to save the time input required by the expensive and busy academic members of staff
Summary
Methods of standard setting have evolved during the past five decades, ensuring examinees experience fairer examinations. Looking at the available evidence, such methods can be broadly divided into three categories of absolute, relative and compromised
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
