library bookshelves

RESEARCH LIBRARY

View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team

Showing 1 - 10 of 12 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: | Hilary Barnes, Asefeh Faraz Covelli, Jonathan D. Rubright

Research in Nursing & Health: Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 127-135

 

As interest in supporting new nurse practitioners' (NPs) transition to practice increases, those interested in measuring the concept will need an instrument with evidence of reliability and validity. The Novice NP Role Transition (NNPRT) Scale is the first instrument to measure the concept. Using a cross-sectional design and data from 210 novice NPs, the purpose of this study was to confirm the NNPRT Scale's internal factor structure via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Posted: | Mark Gierl, Kimberly Swygert, Donna Matovinovic, Allison Kulesher, Hollis Lai

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

 

The purpose of this analysis is to describe these sources of evidence that can be used to evaluate the quality of generated items. The important role of medical expertise in the development and evaluation of the generated items is highlighted as a crucial requirement for producing validation evidence.

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: | Victoria Yaneva, Brian E. Clauser, Amy Morales, Miguel Paniagua

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 58, Issue 4, Pages 515-537

 

In this paper, the NBME team reports the results an eye-tracking study designed to evaluate how the presence of the options in multiple-choice questions impacts the way medical students responded to questions designed to evaluate clinical reasoning. Examples of the types of data that can be extracted are presented. We then discuss the implications of these results for evaluating the validity of inferences made based on the type of items used in this study.

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, R.A. Feinberg RA, B.E. Clauser

Integrating Timing Considerations to Improve Testing Practices

 

This chapter addresses a different aspect of the use of timing data: it provides a framework for understanding how an examinee's use of time interfaces with time limits to impact both test performance and the validity of inferences made based on test scores. It focuses primarily on examinations that are administered as part of the physician licensure process.

Posted: | E. Knetka, C. Runyon, S. Eddy

CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 18, No. 1

 

This article briefly reviews the aspects of validity that researchers should consider when using surveys. It then focuses on factor analysis, a statistical method that can be used to collect an important type of validity evidence.

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: | 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.