Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Research Library Publications
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. Baldwin, M.J. Margolis, B.E. Clauser, J. Mee, M. Winward

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39: 37-44

 

This article presents the results of an experiment in which content experts were randomly assigned to one of two response probability conditions: .67 and .80. If the standard-setting judgments collected with the bookmark procedure are internally consistent, both conditions should produce highly similar cut scores.

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.