Table 2. Choice of standard setting method(s) according to assessment style for Finals*
Standard setting method MCQ OSCE SAQ MiniCeX OSLER Essay Portfolio Portfolio viva DOPS Long case Ward simulation exercise Total
Frequency (%)
Anchor statements with common marking scheme 1 (3.8) 2 (7.4) - 2 (66.7) 1 (33.3) 1 (50) 1 (50) - 1 (100) - - 9 (11.7)
Anchor statements with common marking scheme and fixed pass mark - - - 1 (33.3) - - - 1 (50) - - - 2 (2.6)
Angoff 15 (57.7) 2 (7.4) 7 (77.8) - - 1 (50) - - - - - 25 (32.5)
Angoff and Hofstee 2 (7.7) - - - - - - - - - - 2 (2.6)
Borderline group† - 9 (33.3) - - - - - 1 (50) - - - 10 (13.0)
Borderline group and Hofstee - 1 (3.7) - - - - - - - - - 1 (1.3)
Borderline regression - 12 (44.4) - - 1 (33.3) - - - - 1 (100) - 14 (18.2)
Contrasting-groups - - - - - - 1 (50) - - - - 1 (1.3)
Ebel 5 (19.2) 1 (3.7) 1 (11.1) - - - - - - - - 7 (9.1)
Ebel and Rasch analysis‡ 1 (3.8) - - - - - - - - - - 1 (1.3)
Fixed pass mark 1 (3.8) - - - 1 (33.3) - - - - - - 2 (2.6)
Hofstee 1 (3.8) - 1 (11.1) - - - - - - - - 2 (2.6)
Rasch analysis - - - - - - - - - - 1 (100) 1 (1.3)
Total 26 (100) 27 (100) 9 (100) 3 (100) 3 (100) 2 (100) 2 (100) 2 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) 77 (100)

*Abbreviations in column headers are defined in the methods section of this paper under 'Use of terminology'. The symbol ‘-’ is used to denote all instances where the corresponding combination of standard setting technique and assessment style was not selected by any respondent as pertaining to Finals at their medical school. †In conjunction with the OSCE, one school specified use of the median (rather than the mean) in deriving the pass mark. ‡Here, Rasch analysis was presented by the respondent school as being used to monitor or moderate marks derived by the Ebel method.

 Int J Med Educ. 2015; 6:125-135; doi: 10.5116/ijme.560e.c964