The Borderline Regression method produced higher OSCE pass rates than Angoff methods (97.5% vs 86.6%) and discrepancies raise concerns for small cohorts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In one prospective OSCE study, Angoff I and II had pass rates of 86.6% while the Borderline Regression method achieved 97.5%. → Lin Galvin Sim Siang 2026 q2 i? Discrepancies between Angoff and Borderline Regression methods suggest potential concerns with applying Angoff in small OSCE cohorts. → Lin Galvin Sim Siang 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Lin Galvin Sim Siang 2026¶

Lin Galvin Sim Siang, Hisham Abdul Rauf Badrul, Majid Muhammad Nazmi Abdul, Foong Chan Choong, Ho Ting Khee, Friedlander Lara T. (2026). Refining competency benchmarks: a scoping review of Angoff standard-setting in dental education. BMC Oral Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-08195-9

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports from Schoonheim-Klein et al.'s prospective study of 119 third-year dental students that "Angoff I and II had pass rates of 86.6%, while the Borderline Regression method achieved 97.5%", i.e. more favourable results for Borderline Regression.

"Angoff I and II had pass rates of 86.6%, while the Borderline Regression method achieved 97.5%."

Lin Galvin Sim Siang 2026 (2)¶

Lin Galvin Sim Siang, Hisham Abdul Rauf Badrul, Majid Muhammad Nazmi Abdul, Foong Chan Choong, Ho Ting Khee, Friedlander Lara T. (2026). Refining competency benchmarks: a scoping review of Angoff standard-setting in dental education. BMC Oral Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-08195-9

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports from Moreno-Lopez and Hope's retrospective UK study of dental students in years 2–4 that discrepancies between the methods were observed, attributed possibly to poor use of grading scales; the Borderline Regression method was considered an acceptable alternative for small cohorts.

"Moreno-Lopez R et al. [29] observed discrepancies between the Angoff and Borderline Regression methods, suggesting potential concerns with the application of Angoff, particularly in small OSCE cohorts, possibly due to poor use of grading scales."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Angoff-derived cut-off scores exceeded the arbitrary 60% fixed passing mark, with one study reporting a 74.31% cut-off that would have produced a 41% failure rate — related
• The Angoff method produced lower cut-off scores and higher pass rates than Cohen and Hofstee methods in dental written assessments, especially in early and middle years — related
• Percentage rating format in the Modified Angoff method yields higher reliability than the Yes/No format, with ICCs of 0.48–0.65 versus a maximum of 0.41 — related
• Contextual factors (learner level, discipline, format) moderate Angoff outcomes — related
• Angoff methods produce significantly higher pass rates than conventional fixed standard-setting methods — related