Investigating assessment standards and fixed passing marks in dental undergraduate finals: a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND

Standard setting is widely practised in healthcare education programmes and specialty examinations in many countries. However, Malaysian dental institutions still arbitrarily set a fixed 50% pass-fail assessment threshold. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore faculty members' experiences and practices in student assessment, their perceptions of the assessment standards employed by the faculty, and their views on the fixed passing standard of 50% in the dental undergraduate final professional examination.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted at a single dental school in Malaysia. An online questionnaire was administered to eligible lecturers, followed by in-depth interviews with volunteer respondents. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using the statistical software Jamovi; qualitative data was analysed with inductive thematic analysis process in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

A total of 26 lecturers responded to the questionnaire (55% response rate), and 12 of these respondents also completed interviews. All respondents had experience in writing and developing assessments for students and reported that post-hoc assessment analysis and standard setting were not routinely carried out. The questionnaire analysis revealed that 13 respondents (50%) felt that the passing marks for the final exam were fair, 9(34.6%) were neutral, and 4(15.4%) strongly disagreed/disagreed. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data: (1) Trust in the institutional quality assurance processes (2) Reflections on the passing mark as passing standard (3) Potential barriers to standard setting (4) Future faculty development strategies.

CONCLUSION

Arbitrary passing marks are common practise in dental education in this region. Our research revealed mixed confidence among participants in using an arbitrary fixed passing marks to make pass-fail decisions for dental high-stakes examinations. Low level of exposure and knowledge about educational measurement has restricted the application of post-hoc assessment analysis and standard-setting practices at the institute. Most participants were positive about exploring and learning methods to improve assessment practices and ensure fair passing standards. Any implementation of standard setting in similar contexts will need careful thought around training, support and infrastructure.