Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Janet Mee, Ravi Pandian, Justin Wolczynski, Amy Morales, Miguel Paniagua, Polina Harik, Peter Baldwin, Brian E. Clauser

Advances in Health Sciences Education

 

Recent advancements enable replacing MCQs with SAQs in high-stakes assessments, but prior research often used small samples under low stakes and lacked time data. This study assesses difficulty, discrimination, and time in a large-scale high-stakes context

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: | B.C. Leventhal, I. Grabovsky

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39: 30-36

 

This article proposes the conscious weight method and subconscious weight method to bring more objectivity to the standard setting process. To do this, these methods quantify the relative harm of the negative consequences of false positive and false negative misclassification.

Posted: | C. Liu, M. J. Kolen

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 564-581

 

Smoothing techniques are designed to improve the accuracy of equating functions. The main purpose of this study is to compare seven model selection strategies for choosing the smoothing parameter (C) for polynomial loglinear presmoothing and one procedure for model selection in cubic spline postsmoothing for mixed‐format pseudo tests under the random groups design.

Posted: | M.R. Raymond, C. Stevens, S.D. Bucak

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.

Posted: | E. C. Carey, M. Paniagua, L. J. Morrison, S. K. Levine, J. C. Klick, G. T. Buckholz, J. Rotella, J. Bruno, S. Liao, R. M. Arnold

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management: Volume 56, Issue 3, p371-378

 

This article reviews the USMLE step examinations to determine whether they test the palliative care (PC) knowledge necessary for graduating medical students and residents applying for licensure.

Posted: | S. Tackett, M. Raymond, R. Desai, S. A. Haist, A. Morales, S. Gaglani, S. G. Clyman

Medical Teacher: Volume 40 - Issue 8 - p 838-841

 

Adaptive learning requires frequent and valid assessments for learners to track progress against their goals. This study determined if multiple-choice questions (MCQs) “crowdsourced” from medical learners could meet the standards of many large-scale testing programs.

Posted: | D. Franzen, M. Cuddy, J. S. Ilgen

Journal of Graduate Medical Education: June 2018, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 337-338

 

To create examinations with scores that accurately support their intended interpretation and use in a particular setting, examination writers must clearly define what the test is intended to measure (the construct). Writers must also pay careful attention to how content is sampled, how questions are constructed, and how questions perform in their unique testing contexts.1–3 This Rip Out provides guidance for test developers to ensure that scores from MCQ examinations fit their intended purpose.

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.