Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Jonathan D. Rubright, Thai Q. Ong, Michael G. Jodoin, David A. Johnson, Michael A. Barone

Academic Medicine: Volume 97 - Issue 8 - Pages 1219-1225

 

Since 2012, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) has maintained a policy of ≤ 6 attempts on any examination component. The purpose of this study was to empirically examine the appropriateness of existing USMLE retake policy.

Posted: | F.S. McDonald, D. Jurich, L.M. Duhigg, M. Paniagua, D. Chick, M. Wells, A. Williams, P. Alguire

Academic Medicine: September 2020 - Volume 95 - Issue 9 - p 1388-1395

 

This article aims to assess the correlations between United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) performance, American College of Physicians Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) performance, American Board of Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Certification Exam (IM-CE) performance, and other medical knowledge and demographic variables.

Posted: | L. E. Peterson, J. R. Boulet, B. E. Clauser

Academic Medicine: Volume 95 - Issue 9 - p 1396-1403

 

The objective of this study was to evaluate the associations of all required standardized examinations in medical education with ABFM certification examination scores and eventual ABFM certification.

Posted: | S. Pohl, M. von Davier

Front. Psychol. 9:1988

 

In their 2018 article, (T&B) discuss how to deal with not reached items due to low working speed in ability tests (Tijmstra and Bolsinova, 2018). An important contribution of the paper is focusing on the question of how to define the targeted ability measure. This note aims to add further aspects to this discussion and to propose alternative approaches.

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.