Background: The whole-test Ebel and Yes/No Angoff methods offer the possibility of faster and easier standard-setting exercises for local, medium-stakes performance exams.
Purpose: We sought to establish if these less demanding methods might be substituted for the traditional but complex case-level Ebel.
Methods: Six faculty judges each used all three methods to set standards for six standardized-patient checklists used for 178 fourth-year medical students. We compared the cut scores, passing rates, reliability, ease of use, and credibility of the three methods.
Results: The three methods produced roughly equivalent cut scores. Generalizability of judgments was .94 and .96 for the case-level and whole-test Ebel, and .76 for the Yes/No Angoff. Judges found the simplified methods more credible than the case-level Ebel. The Yes/No Angoff method was preferred by five of six judges.
Conclusions: The whole-test Ebel and the Yes/No Angoff may be simple and realistic options for setting standards for local performance exams.