Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Research Library Publications
Posted: | B. E. Clauser, M. Kane, J. C. Clauser

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 216-229

 

This article presents two generalizability-theory–based analyses of the proportion of the item variance that contributes to error in the cut score. For one approach, variance components are estimated on the probability (or proportion-correct) scale of the Angoff judgments, and for the other, the judgments are transferred to the theta scale of an item response theory model before estimating the variance components.

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: | K. Walsh, P. Harik, K. Mazor, D. Perfetto, M. Anatchkova, C. Biggins, J. Wagner

Medical Care: April 2017 - Volume 55 - Issue 4 - p 436-441

 

The objective of this study is to identify modifiable factors that improve the reliability of ratings of severity of health care–associated harm in clinical practice improvement and research.

Posted: | Ruth B. Hoppe, Ann M. King, Kathleen M. Mazor, Gail E. Furman, Penelope Wick-Garcia, Heather Corcoran–Ponisciak, Peter J. Katsufrakis

Academic Medicine: Volume 88 - Issue 11 - p 1670-1675

 

From 2007 through 2012, the NBME team reviewed literature in physician–patient communication, examined performance characteristics of the Step 2 CS exam, observed case development and quality assurance processes, interviewed SPs and their trainers, and reviewed video recordings of examinee–SP interactions.  The authors describe perspectives gained by their team from the review process and outline the resulting enhancements to the Step 2 CS exam, some of which were rolled out in June 2012.