Consistency between inter-institutional panels using a three-level Angoff-standard setting in licensure tests of foreign-trained dentists in Sweden: A cohort study

by Jesper Dalum, Liselotte Paulsson, Nikolaos Christidis, Mikael Andersson Franko, Klas Karlgren, Charlotte Leanderson, Gunilla Sandborgh-Englund

Licensure exams play a crucial role in ensuring the competence of individuals entering a profession, thereby safeguarding the public and maintaining the quality and integrity of the profession. In Sweden, dentists educated outside the European Union seeking to practise dentistry must undergoa re-certification process. The re-certification process includes a theoretical examination where pass marks are set using a three-level Angoff method. This study aimed to determine the consistency of the Angoff ratings using independent panels at two Swedish universities. Two cohorts of panellists were included in the study: one reference and one external. The reference panel was responsible for rating the upcoming theoretical examinations in the proficiency test, which were used to set the pass mark. The external panel, recruited from a dental school at a university in another region in Sweden, provided ratings after the examinations. Three examinations during 2019–2020 were included in this study (267 items in total). There was a strong correlation (ρ ≥ 0.70, p < .001) between the ratings of the two independent panels, with no significant differences in item ratings across the full exams, dental disciplines, and professional qualifications analysed. This suggests that the three-level Angoff method reliably produces similar standards for assessing the competence of the minimally qualified dentist across different institutions. The expectations of the minimally qualified but still acceptable dentist were comparable between the two independent panels across the three theoretical examinations explored. The alignment between the panels indicates valid, reliable standards across institutions, despite the independent syllabi of the two study programmes. However, while there is an alignment, differences in ratings remain. Consequently, involving multiple institutions in future standard-setting processes could help ensure that the standards reflect a broader range of educational practices, supporting the credibility of licensure examinations.