SynthesisBMC medical education2025
Angoff methods in standard setting in health professional education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Angoff methods in standard setting in health professional education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- AI-Assisted Angoff Standard Setting for Multiple-Choice Examinations in Medical Education: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Integrating early clinical exposure, digital simulation, and soft-skill development into undergraduate paediatric dentistry curricula.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandard setting is a critical component of assessment in health professions education, ensuring fairness, defensibility, and validity in determining minimum competence. Among criterion-referenced approaches, the Angoff method and its variants are widely applied. However, the evidence base on their comparative performance remains fragmented, with no recent quantitative synthesis available. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of Angoff methods across different educational and assessment contexts.
methodsA systematic electronic search was conducted for studies that applied Angoff or its variants [Modified, Yes/No, Three-level, Group (Yes/No), or Mastery] in health professions assessments and reported at least one of the following: cut score, pass rate, or inter-rater reliability. Pooled estimates were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and random-effects meta-analysis. Odds ratio (OR) was used as the effect estimate for pass rate in comparative studies. Meta-regression analyses explored heterogeneity by number of judges, and test length.
resultsA total of 91 studies were included in the systematic review. Mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates revealed significantly higher pass rates with Angoff (OR: 7.48) compared to the conventional fixed method. Mastery Angoff (88.2%) and Mastery Angoff with reality check (86.9%) were associated with higher cut scores, resulting in substantially lower pass rates (61.44% for Mastery Angoff). The Modified Angoff with reality check achieved excellent reliability (r = 0.917) while the Angoff (Yes/No) yielded the weakest and most variable results (r = 0.536), a finding confirmed by bootstrap analyses. Meta-regression indicated that each additional judge was associated with a 0.19-percentage point increase in cut scores (p = 0.003) while each additional test item was associated with a 0.05-percentage point increase in the pass rate (p = 0.001).
conclusionFor educators and policymakers, these findings underscore that the Angoff method is not a single technique but a flexible family of approaches with distinct outcomes. The choice of variants allows for the deliberate setting of more lenient or stringent standards, with Modified Angoff incorporating a reality check offering the most reliable and defensible results. This flexibility is a key strength but also a critical limitation, as an uninformed choice can lead to unintended pass rates. Therefore, selecting a specific Angoff variant must be a conscious decision aligned with the assessment's purpose and context.
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.