Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 243
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 220-225

Angoff's method: The impact of raters' selection

Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, International University of africa, Khartoum, Sudan

Correspondence Address:
Assad A Rezigalla
Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, International University of africa, Khartoum
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1658-631X.162027

Rights and Permissions

Background: Several methods have been proposed for setting an examination pass mark (PM), and the Angoff's method or its modified version is the preferred one. Selection of raters is important and affects the PM. Aims and Objectives: This study aims to investigate the selection of raters in the Angoff's method and the impact of academic degrees and experience on the PM decided on. Materials and Methods: Type A MCQs examination was used in this study as a model. Raters with different academic degrees and experience participated in the study. Raters estimations were statiscally analyzed. Results: The selection of raters was crucial. Agreement among raters could be achieved by those with relevant qualifications and expertise. There was an association between high estimation, academic degree, expertise and high PM. Conclusion: Selection of raters for the Angoff's method should include those with different academic degrees, backgrounds and experience so that a satisfactory PM may be reached by means of a reasonable agreement.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded224    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal