ArticleBMC medical education2025
Investigating assessment standards and fixed passing marks in dental undergraduate finals: a mixed-methods approach.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard setting is widely practised in healthcare education programmes and specialty examinations in many countries. However, Malaysian dental institutions still arbitrarily set a fixed 50% pass-fail assessment threshold. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore faculty members' experiences and practices in student assessment, their perceptions of the assessment standards employed by the faculty, and their views on the fixed passing standard of 50% in the dental undergraduate final professional examination.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted at a single dental school in Malaysia. An online questionnaire was administered to eligible lecturers, followed by in-depth interviews with volunteer respondents. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using the statistical software Jamovi; qualitative data was analysed with inductive thematic analysis process in Microsoft Excel.
resultsA total of 26 lecturers responded to the questionnaire (55% response rate), and 12 of these respondents also completed interviews. All respondents had experience in writing and developing assessments for students and reported that post-hoc assessment analysis and standard setting were not routinely carried out. The questionnaire analysis revealed that 13 respondents (50%) felt that the passing marks for the final exam were fair, 9(34.6%) were neutral, and 4(15.4%) strongly disagreed/disagreed. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) Trust in the institutional quality assurance processes (2) Reflections on the passing mark as passing standard (3) Potential barriers to standard setting (4) Future faculty development strategies.
conclusionArbitrary passing marks are common practise in dental education in this region. Our research revealed mixed confidence among participants in using an arbitrary fixed passing marks to make pass-fail decisions for dental high-stakes examinations. Low level of exposure and knowledge about educational measurement has restricted the application of post-hoc assessment analysis and standard-setting practices at the institute. Most participants were positive about exploring and learning methods to improve assessment practices and ensure fair passing standards. Any implementation of standard setting in similar contexts will need careful thought around training, support and infrastructure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.