Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Research Library Publications
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: | 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: | M. J. Margolis, M. von Davier, B. E. Clauser

Integrating Timing Considerations to Improve Testing Practices

 

This chapter addresses timing considerations in the context of other types of performance assessments and reports on a previously unpublished experiment examining timing with respect to performance on computer-based case simulations that are used in physician licensure.

Posted: | M. J. Margolis, B. E. Clauser

Handbook of Automated Scoring

 

In this chapter we describe the historical background that led to development of the simulations and the subsequent refinement of the construct that occurred as the interface was being developed. We then describe the evolution of the automated scoring procedures from linear regression modeling to rule-based procedures.

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.