Journal of Medical Education Development

en Standard setting methods in objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): A comparative study of five methods آموزش پزشکی Medical Education پژوهشي اصیل Orginal Research Background & Objective: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a crucial component in medical school examinations to assess students’ competency, particularly in clinical skills incorporating cognitive and affective domains. OSCE results are subjected to standard-setting methods, which yield different findings. Hence, in this study, five different standard-setting methods, namely norm reference, Angoff method, borderline group method (BGM), borderline regression method (BRM), and modified Cohen’s method, were compared to determine the cut-off scores and failure rates determined by each method. Material & Methods: Data of 170 second-year medical students who attended OSCE with eight stations for their First Professional Examination at the end of year 2 MBBS was taken for the study following ethical approval. Total scores for each station were standardized to 20 marks, and cut-off scores were determined using each of the five standard-setting methods. Results: As a comparison of 5 methods, the Norm reference method yielded the highest number of stations with high cut-off scores, followed by BRM. This is reflected in the number of failures, too. On the contrary, using the Angoff method yielded the lowest cut-off scores in maximum stations, resulting in the least number of failed students. The Cochrane’s Q test of the results yielded a p < 0.001, which signifies that the proportion of students who failed a particular OSCE station was significantly different when different methods were used to determine the cut score. Conclusion: The study, which compared 5 common standard-setting methods employed in medical education assessments, found that norm-referenced and BRM had high cut-off scores and failures, with the opposite determined by the Modified Angoff method. The study concluded that the cut-off score and failure rate differed with different standard-setting methods, and the choice of the method is contextual depending on the available resources.  standard setting, OSCE, Angoff, norm-reference, borderline group, borderline regression, Cohen 87 96 http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-12-2084-2&slc_lang=en&sid=1 Reshma Ansari reshmaansari77@gmail.com 5300319475328460033402 5300319475328460033402 Yes Medical Education Department International Medical School Management & Science University, Selangor Malaysia Norhafizah Ab Manan nor.hafizah@cyberjaya.edu.my 5300319475328460033403 5300319475328460033403 No Department of Public Health Faculty of Medicine University of Cyberjaya, Selangor Malaysia Nur Ain Mahat nurainmahat@iium.edu.my 5300319475328460033404 5300319475328460033404 No Kulliyah of Nursing International Islamic University, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia. IIUM Kuantan, Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah Postal code/ZIP : 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia Norfaizatul Shalida Omar shalidaomar@gmail.edu.my 5300319475328460033405 5300319475328460033405 No Department of Biochemistry Manipal University College Malaysia, Malacca Malaysia Atikah Abdul Latiff atikah@cyberjaya.edu.my 5300319475328460033406 5300319475328460033406 No Department of Anatomy Faculty of Medicine University of Cyberjaya, Selangor Malaysia Sara Idris sara@cyberjaya.edu.my 5300319475328460033407 5300319475328460033407 No Department of Anatomy Faculty of Medicine University of Cyberjaya, Selangor Malaysia Azli Shahril Othman azli.shahril@upnm.edu.my 5300319475328460033408 5300319475328460033408 No Department of Pharmacology Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia