ArticleBMC medical education2025
Standard setting for dental knowledge tests: reproducibility of the modified Angoff and Ebel method across judges.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCriterion-referenced standard setting methods establish passing scores based on predefined competency levels. The credibility of these scores must be supported by validity evidence. This study evaluated the reproducibility of modified Angoff and Ebel standards across different test formats and panels in dental assessments. Inter-rater reliability for each method was also assessed.
methodsTwelve judges, selected via purposive sampling, were divided into two equal groups representing various specialisms. Each panel applied modified Angoff and Ebel methods to set standards for one-best answer (OBA) and short answer question (SAQ) items. Method replicability across panels was assessed using the Mann-Whitney U-test to compare passing scores between Groups A and B. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared passing scores between modified Angoff and Ebel within groups. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using the intraclass correlation coefficient for modified Angoff and Fleiss' kappa for Ebel. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe median (IQR) years of teaching experience were 14.0 (17.0) for Group A judges and 21.5 (18.0) for Group B judges. In Group A, median (IQR) passing scores using modified Angoff were 49.75 (3.31) for OBA and 51.75 (6.13) for SAQ, with statistical no significant differences (p > 0.05) from Ebel OBA 47.38 (2.02), SAQ 49.50 (5.38). In Group B, modified Angoff passing scores were significantly higher than Ebel (p < 0.05): modified Angoff OBA 66.12 (3.31), SAQ 58.00 (7.50); Ebel OBA 55.92 (2.73), SAQ 49.50 (8.25). Passing scores were consistent across panels for SAQ but not for OBA. Inter-rater agreement, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Fleiss' kappa were higher in Group A across both methods.
conclusionReproducibility of modified Angoff and Ebel standards across panels was mixed. Passing scores were consistent across judges for SAQ but varied for OBA in both methods. Group A showed consistency between modified Angoff and Ebel standards, whereas Group B had differing passing scores between both standards. These findings should be carefully considered when establishing defensible and reliable passing standards for dental knowledge assessments.
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.