Showing 1 - 3 of 3 Research Library Publications

A Comparison of Remote vs In-Person Proctored In-Training Examination Administration for Internal Medicine

Posted: | Thai Ong, Becky Krumm, Margaret Wells, Susan Read, Linda Harris, Andrea Altomare, Miguel Paniagua

Academic Medicine: Volume 99 - Issue 7 - Pages 778-783

 

This study examined score comparability between in-person and remote proctored administrations of the 2020 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis of data from 27,115 IM residents revealed statistically significant but educationally nonsignificant differences in predicted scores, with slightly larger variations observed for first-year residents. Overall, performance did not substantially differ between the two testing modalities, supporting the continued use of remote proctoring for the IM-ITE amidst pandemic-related disruptions.

Category:Assessment-Oriented Research, Scoring, Links to Outcomes

Correlations Between the USMLE Step Examinations, American College of Physicians In-Training Examination, and ABIM Internal Medicine Certification Examination

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.

Category:Assessment-Oriented Research, Scoring, Links to Outcomes, Product-Oriented Research, USMLE

Examining the Validity of the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) Time Constraints

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.

Category:Assessment-Oriented Research, Reliability/Validity, Product-Oriented Research, NBME