library bookshelves

RESEARCH LIBRARY

View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team

Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Research Library Publications
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: | M. von Davier, J. H. Shin, L. Khorramdel, L. Stankov

Applied Psychological Measurement: Volume: 42 issue: 4, page(s): 291-306

 

The research presented in this article combines mathematical derivations and empirical results to investigate effects of the nonparametric anchoring vignette approach proposed by King, Murray, Salomon, and Tandon on the reliability and validity of rating data. The anchoring vignette approach aims to correct rating data for response styles to improve comparability across individuals and groups.

Posted: | Z. Jiang, M.R. Raymond

Applied Psychological Measurement: Volume: 42 issue: 8, page(s): 595-612

 

Conventional methods for evaluating the utility of subscores rely on reliability and correlation coefficients. However, correlations can overlook a notable source of variability: variation in subtest means/difficulties. Brennan introduced a reliability index for score profiles based on multivariate generalizability theory, designated as G, which is sensitive to variation in subtest difficulty. However, there has been little, if any, research evaluating the properties of this index. A series of simulation experiments, as well as analyses of real data, were conducted to investigate G under various conditions of subtest reliability, subtest correlations, and variability in subtest means.

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.