RESEARCH LIBRARY
RESEARCH LIBRARY
View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team
Journal of Graduate Medical Education: Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 634-638
This article discusses recent recommendations from the UME-GME Review Committee (UGRC) to address challenges in the UME-GME transition—including complexity, negative impact on well-being, costs, and inequities.
Academic Medicine: Volume 98 - Issue 2 - Pages 180-187
This article describes the work of the Coalition for Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education to Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) to apply a quality improvement approach and systems thinking to explore the underlying causes of dysfunction in the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) transition.
Teaching and Learning in Medicine: Volume 33 - Issue 4 - p 366-381
CSE scores for students from eight schools that moved Step 1 after core clerkships between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed in a pre-post format. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to quantify the effect of the curriculum on CSE performance. Additional analysis determined if clerkship order impacted clinical subject exam performance and whether the curriculum change resulted in more students scoring in the lowest percentiles before and after the curricular change.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39: 30-36
This article proposes the conscious weight method and subconscious weight method to bring more objectivity to the standard setting process. To do this, these methods quantify the relative harm of the negative consequences of false positive and false negative misclassification.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management: Volume 56, Issue 3, p371-378
This article reviews the USMLE step examinations to determine whether they test the palliative care (PC) knowledge necessary for graduating medical students and residents applying for licensure.
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.