Purpose This study explored the possibility of using the Angoff method, in which panel experts determine the cut score of an exam, for the Korean Nursing Licensing Examination (KNLE). Two mock exams for the KNLE were analyzed. The Angoff standard setting procedure was conducted and the results were analyzed. We also aimed to examine the procedural validity of applying the Angoff method in this context. Methods For both mock exams, we set a pass-fail cut score using the Angoff method. The standard setting panel consisted of 16 nursing professors. After the Angoff procedure, the procedural validity of establishing the standard was evaluated by investigating the responses of the standard setters. Results The descriptions of the minimally competent person for the KNLE were presented at the levels of general and subject performance. The cut scores of first and second mock exams were 74.4 and 76.8, respectively. These were higher than the traditional cut score (60% of the total score of the KNLE). The panel survey showed very positive responses, with scores higher than 4 out of 5 points on a Likert scale. Conclusion The scores calculated for both mock tests were similar, and were much higher than the existing cut scores. In the second simulation, the standard deviation of the Angoff rating was lower than in the first simulation. According to the survey results, procedural validity was acceptable, as shown by a high level of confidence. The results show that determining cut scores by an expert panel is an applicable method.

中文翻译：

---

使用Angoff方法为韩国护理执照考试设置模拟考试标准

目的本研究探讨了使用Angoff方法（由专家组确定考试的最高分）进行韩国护理执照考试（KNLE）的可能性。分析了两次针对KNLE的模拟考试。进行了Angoff标准设定程序，并对结果进行了分析。我们还旨在研究在这种情况下应用Angoff方法的程序有效性。方法对于两种模拟考试，我们都使用Angoff方法设置了不及格分数。标准制定小组由16名护理教授组成。在完成Angoff程序后，通过调查标准制定者的回应来评估建立标准的程序有效性。结果在一般和受试者表现水平上介绍了KNLE的最低能力人员。第一次和第二次模拟考试的减分分别为74.4和76.8。这些都比传统的切割分数（KNLE总分数的60％）高。小组调查显示出非常积极的反应，在李克特量表中，得分超过5分中的4分。结论两种模拟测试的分数均相似，并且比现有的割分数高得多。在第二个模拟中，Angoff等级的标准偏差低于第一个模拟。根据调查结果，程序的有效性是可以接受的，这由高度可信度表明。结果表明，由专家小组确定切割分数是一种适用的方法。小组调查显示出非常积极的反应，在李克特量表中，得分超过5分中的4分。结论两种模拟测试的分数均相似，并且比现有的割分数高得多。在第二个模拟中，Angoff等级的标准偏差低于第一个模拟。根据调查结果，程序的有效性是可以接受的，这由高度可信度表明。结果表明，由专家小组确定切割分数是一种适用的方法。小组调查显示出非常积极的回应，在李克特量表中，得分超过5分中的4分。结论两种模拟测试的分数均相似，并且比现有的割分数高得多。在第二个模拟中，Angoff等级的标准偏差低于第一个模拟。根据调查结果，程序的有效性是可以接受的，这由高度可信度表明。结果表明，由专家小组确定切割分数是一种适用的方法。Angoff等级的标准偏差低于第一个模拟。根据调查结果，程序的有效性是可以接受的，这由高度可信度表明。结果表明，由专家小组确定切割分数是一种适用的方法。Angoff等级的标准偏差低于第一个模拟。根据调查结果，程序有效性是可以接受的，这由高度可信度表明。结果表明，由专家小组确定切割分数是一种适用的方法。