RESEARCH LIBRARY
RESEARCH LIBRARY
View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team
Adv in Health Sci Educ 24, 141–150 (2019)
Research suggests that the three-option format is optimal for multiple choice questions (MCQs). This conclusion is supported by numerous studies showing that most distractors (i.e., incorrect answers) are selected by so few examinees that they are essentially nonfunctional. However, nearly all studies have defined a distractor as nonfunctional if it is selected by fewer than 5% of examinees.
Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 582-594
This article proposes and evaluates a new method that implements computerized adaptive testing (CAT) without any restriction on item review. In particular, it evaluates the new method in terms of the accuracy on ability estimates and the robustness against test‐manipulation strategies. This study shows that the newly proposed method is promising in a win‐win situation: examinees have full freedom to review and change answers, and the impacts of test‐manipulation strategies are undermined.
Muscle Nerve, 58: 646-654
The Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)‐Specific Quality of Life instrument and its revised version (ALSSQOL and ALSSQOL‐R) have strong psychometric properties, and have demonstrated research and clinical utility. This study aimed to develop a short form (ALSSQOL‐SF) suitable for limited clinic time and patient stamina.
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 150-152
An introduction to a special issue of Quality Assurance in Education featuring papers based on presentations at a two-day international seminar on managing the quality of data collection in large-scale assessments.
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.