library bookshelves

RESEARCH LIBRARY

View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team

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: | M. G. Jodoin, J. D. Rubright

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

 

This short, invited manuscript focuses on the implications for certification and licensure assessment organizations as a result of the wide‐spread disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

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: | 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.