library bookshelves

RESEARCH LIBRARY

View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team

Showing 1 - 10 of 10 Research Library Publications
Posted: | John Norcini, Irina Grabovsky, Michael A. Barone, M. Brownell Anderson, Ravi S. Pandian, Alex J. Mechaber

Academic Medicine: Volume 99 - Issue 3 - p 325-330

 

This retrospective cohort study investigates the association between United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and outcomes in 196,881 hospitalizations in Pennsylvania over 3 years.

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: | Hanin Rashid, Christopher Runyon, Jesse Burk-Rafel, Monica M. Cuddy, Liselotte Dyrbye, Katie Arnhart, Ulana Luciw-Dubas, Hilit F. Mechaber, Steve Lieberman, Miguel Paniagua

Academic Medicine: Volume 97 - Issue 11S - Page S176

 

As Step 1 begins to transition to pass/fail, it is interesting to consider the impact of score goal on wellness. This study examines the relationship between goal score, gender, and students’ self-reported anxiety, stress, and overall distress immediately following their completion of Step 1.

Posted: | Monica M. Cuddy, Chunyan Liu, Wenli Ouyang, Michael A. Barone, Aaron Young, David A. Johnson

Academic Medicine: June 2022

 

This study examines the associations between Step 3 scores and subsequent receipt of disciplinary action taken by state medical boards for problematic behavior in practice. It analyzes Step 3 total, Step 3 computer-based case simulation (CCS), and Step 3multiple-choice question (MCQ) scores.

Posted: | Daniel Jurich, Chunyan Liu, Amanda Clauser

Journal of Graduate Medical Education: Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 353-354

 

Letter to the editor.

Posted: | Carol Morrison, Jennifer Wise, Marie Maranki, Linette Ross

Medical Science Educator: Volume 31, p 607–613 (2021)

 

This study extended previous research on the NBME Clinical Science Mastery Series self-assessments to investigate the utility of recently released self-assessments for students completing Family Medicine clerkships and Emergency Medicine sub-internships and preparing for summative assessments.

Posted: | Daniel Jurich, Michelle Daniel, Karen E. Hauer, Christine Seibert, Latha Chandran, Arnyce R. Pock, Sara B. Fazio, Amy Fleming, Sally A. Santen

Teaching and Learning in Medicine: Volume 33 - Issue 4 - p 366-381

 

CSE scores for students from eight schools that moved Step 1 after core clerkships between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed in a pre-post format. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to quantify the effect of the curriculum on CSE performance. Additional analysis determined if clerkship order impacted clinical subject exam performance and whether the curriculum change resulted in more students scoring in the lowest percentiles before and after the curricular change.

Posted: | Y.S. Park, A. Morales, L. Ross, M. Paniagua

Evaluation & the Health Professions: Volume: 43 issue: 3, page(s): 149-158

 

This study examines the innovative and practical application of DCM framework to health professions educational assessments using retrospective large-scale assessment data from the basic and clinical sciences: National Board of Medical Examiners Subject Examinations in pathology (n = 2,006) and medicine (n = 2,351).

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.

Posted: | R.A. Feinberg, D. Jurich, J. Lord, H. Case, J. Hawley

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2018 45:3, 381-387

 

This study uses item response data from the November–December 2014 and April 2015 NAVLE administrations (n =5,292), to conduct timing analyses comparing performance across several examinee subgroups. The results provide evidence that conditions were sufficient for most examinees, thereby supporting the current time limits. For the relatively few examinees who may have been impacted, results suggest the cause is not a bias with the test but rather the effect of poor pacing behavior combined with knowledge deficits.