Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Christopher Runyon, Polina Harik, Michael Barone

Diagnosis: Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 54-60

 

This op-ed discusses the advantages of leveraging natural language processing (NLP) in the assessment of clinical reasoning. It also provides an overview of INCITE, the Intelligent Clinical Text Evaluator, a scalable NLP-based computer-assisted scoring system that was developed to measure clinical reasoning ability as assessed in the written documentation portion of the now-discontinued USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills examination. 

Posted: | Victoria Yaneva, Janet Mee, Le Ha, Polina Harik, Michael Jodoin, Alex Mechaber

Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies - p 2880–2886

 

This paper presents a corpus of 43,985 clinical patient notes (PNs) written by 35,156 examinees during the high-stakes USMLE® Step 2 Clinical Skills examination.

Posted: | J. Salt, P. Harik, M. A. Barone

Academic Medicine: March 2019 - Volume 94 - Issue 3 - p 314-316

 

The United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) exam uses physician raters to evaluate patient notes written by examinees. In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe the ways in which the Step 2 CS exam could benefit from adopting a computer-assisted scoring approach that combines physician raters’ judgments with computer-generated scores based on natural language processing (NLP).

Posted: | P. Harik, B. E. Clauser, I. Grabovsky, P. Baldwin, M. Margolis, D. Bucak, M. Jodoin, W. Walsh, S. Haist

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 308-327

 

The widespread move to computerized test delivery has led to the development of new approaches to evaluating how examinees use testing time and to new metrics designed to provide evidence about the extent to which time limits impact performance. Much of the existing research is based on these types of observational metrics; relatively few studies use randomized experiments to evaluate the impact time limits on scores. Of those studies that do report on randomized experiments, none directly compare the experimental results to evidence from observational metrics to evaluate the extent to which these metrics are able to sensitively identify conditions in which time constraints actually impact scores. The present study provides such evidence based on data from a medical licensing examination.