Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Research Library Publications

Using Eye-Tracking Data as Part of the Validity Argument for Multiple-Choice Questions

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.

Category:Assessment-Oriented Research, Applications of Technology

When Examinees Cannot Test: The Pandemic's Assault on Certification and Licensure

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. 

Category:Product-Oriented Research, NBME, USMLE

The Choice of Response Probability in Bookmark Standard Setting: An Experimental Study

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.

Category:Assessment-Oriented Research, General Measurement

Evaluation of a New Method for Providing Full Review Opportunities in Computerized Adaptive Testing — Computerized Adaptive Testing with Salt

Posted: | Z. Cui, C. Liu, Y. He, H. Chen

Journal of Educational Measurement: Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 582-594

 

This article proposes and evaluates a new method that implements computerized adaptive testing (CAT) without any restriction on item review. In particular, it evaluates the new method in terms of the accuracy on ability estimates and the robustness against test‐manipulation strategies. This study shows that the newly proposed method is promising in a win‐win situation: examinees have full freedom to review and change answers, and the impacts of test‐manipulation strategies are undermined.

Category:Assessment-Oriented Research, General Measurement, Applications of Technology