Standard Setting
How to set defensible cut scores for medical exams — Angoff, modified Angoff, borderline methods, and criterion- vs norm-referenced standards.
Standard setting is the process of deciding where the pass mark on an examination should sit — and being able to defend that decision. Every cut score is ultimately a policy judgment, but the judgment can be made systematically: structured methods such as Angoff, Ebel, Hofstee, borderline group, and borderline regression gather expert opinion about what a minimally competent candidate should be able to do and translate it into a score on the test.
The stakes are real. A cut score set too high fails competent students; one set too low certifies candidates who are not ready for supervised practice. When a failing student appeals, "the pass mark has always been 60%" is not a defense. A documented, criterion-referenced procedure — qualified judges, a clear definition of the borderline candidate, a replicable method, and evidence that the resulting standard behaves sensibly — is what makes a pass/fail decision hold up to academic and legal scrutiny (Cizek & Bunch, 2007; Norcini, 2003).
This topic covers the major methods, how they differ, and the practical decisions assessment teams face when implementing them.
No questions published under this topic yet.