| Standard setting method | MCQ | OSCE | SAQ | MiniCeX | OSLER | Essay | Portfolio | DOPS | Long case | OSPE/Anatomyspot exam | Oral presentations | SSC | Viva(Other) | Other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (%)† | |||||||||||||||
| Anchor statements with common marking scheme (CMS) | 1 (4.5) | - | 2 (13.3) | 5 (100) | - | 2 (33.3) | 7 (87.5) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (20) | 5 (100) | 11 (64.7) | 1 (100) | 2 (40) | 39 (32.5) |
| Anchor statements with CMS and Fixed pass mark | 1 (4.5) | 2 (7.4) | - | - | - | 1 (16.7) | - | - | - | - | - | 3 (17.6) | - | 2 (40) | 9 (7.5) |
| Angoff | 16 (72.7) | 3 (11.1) | 12 (80) | - | - | 1 (16.7) | - | - | - | 3 (60) | - | 1 (5.9) | - | - | 36 (30) |
| Borderline group | - | 7 (25.9) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7 (5.8) |
| Borderline group and Hofstee‡ | - | 1 (3.7) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (0.8) |
| Borderline regression | 1 (4.5) | 14 (51.9) | - | - | 1 (50) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (5.9) | - | - | 17 (14.2) |
| Contrasting-groups | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (12.5) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (0.8) |
| Ebel | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (20) | - | - | - | - | 1 (0.8) |
| Fixed pass mark | 1 (4.5) | - | - | - | 1 (50) | 2 (33.3) | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (5.9) | - | - | 5 (4.2) |
| Hofstee | 2 (9.1) | - | 1 (6.7) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 (20) | 4 (3.3) |
| Total | 22 (100) | 27 (100) | 15 (100) | 5 (100) | 2 (100) | 6 (100) | 8 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 17 (100) | 1 (100) | 5 (100) | 120 |
*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 clinical non-Finals at their medical school. †Frequencies and percentages pertain to instances of use of the given standard setting approach for the listed assessment type and as such, may include multiple instances for a given medical school. ‡Here, it was reported that the two standard setting methods were applied separately for the first of two phases of the assessment and the higher of the resultant two pass marks assigned to this first phase of the assessment. Interestingly, students who did not pass this first phase of assessment would in turn require to sit a second phase for which the pass mark was determined using an Angoff approach.
Int J Med Educ. 2015; 6:125-135; doi: 10.5116/ijme.560e.c964