{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029141104294478526, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015337423312883436, 'mean_word_length': 5.978609625668449, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Procedures for Establishing Defensible Absolute Passing Scores on Performance Examinations in Health Professions Education

Background: Establishing credible, defensible, and acceptable passing scores for performance-type examinations in real-world settings is a challenge for health professions educators. Our purpose in this article is to provide step-by-step instructions with worked examples for 5 absolute standard-setting methods that can be used to establish acceptable passing scores for performance examinations such as Objective Structured Clinical Examinations or standardized patient encounters. Summary: All standards reflect the subjective opinions of experts. In this "how-to" article, we demonstrate procedures for systematically capturing these expert opinions using 5 research-based methods (Angoff, Ebel, Hofstee, Borderline Group, and Contrasting Groups). We discuss issues relating to selection of judges, use of performance data, and decision-making processes. Conclusions: Different standard-setting methods produce different passing scores; there is no "gold standard." The key to defensible standards lies in the choice of credible judges and in the use of a systematic approach to collecting their judgments. Ultimately, all standards are policy decisions.