ArticleBMC oral health2026
Refining competency benchmarks: a scoping review of Angoff standard-setting in dental education.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSummative assessments in dental education are important for evaluating competencies and ensuring that graduates meet the required standards for independent practice and regulatory expectations through standard-setting. This scoping review aimed to appraise the current evidence on the use of the Angoff standard-setting method in dental education.
methodsThis scoping review followed the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley, incorporating five key stages: formulating research questions, identifying and selecting relevant studies, charting the data, and collating and summarising results. The review involved a systematic search of six databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) and two major dental education journals up to May 2024 using specific search terms, with duplicates removed via EndNote X9 software. Two investigators (GSSL & ARBH) independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to select relevant studies published in English language, with a third investigator (MNAM) resolving any disagreements. Data extraction was performed independently by four investigators (GSSL, ARBH, MNAM, CCF) using a Google Spreadsheet, and findings were analysed through quantitative frequency and qualitative thematic analysis.
resultsOut of the 1412 records, ten articles were selected after screening. The Angoff and Modified Angoff methods showed good reliability and pass rates, although the results varied between studies. Factors such as exam difficulty, panel-item interaction, age, and repeated test attempts might have influenced score variation, while inter-rater reliability remained strong across studies using Angoff methods.
conclusionAlthough the Angoff and Modified Angoff methods provide flexible, expert-driven approaches to standard-setting, their effectiveness depends on contextual factors such as assessment design, panel training, and educational objectives. Dental educators should therefore tailor implementation to programme and assessment needs rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
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.