| Abstract: | The purpose of this study was to determine whether two variations on the typical Angoff group standard-setting process would produce sufficiently consistent results to recommend their use. Judgments obtained from a group of experts during a meeting were compared with judgments gathered from the same group before and after the meeting. The results indicate that differences between passing scores obtained with the three variations are relatively small, but those gathered before the meeting were less consistent than ratings gathered during and after the meeting. These results imply that judgments gathered after an initial traditional group-process session can provide an efficient alternative mechanism for setting cutting scores using the Angoff method.
This research was supported by The American Board of Internal Medicine, but does not necessarily reflect its opinions or policies. |
