
RESEARCH LIBRARY
RESEARCH LIBRARY
View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team
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
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.
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.