library bookshelves

RESEARCH LIBRARY

View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team

Showing 1 - 8 of 8 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Peter Baldwin

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

 

This article aims to answer the question: when the assumption that examinees may apply themselves fully yet still respond incorrectly is violated, what are the consequences of using the modified model proposed by Lewis and his colleagues? 

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: | B.C. Leventhal, I. Grabovsky

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.

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: | 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.

Posted: | S. Tackett, M. Raymond, R. Desai, S. A. Haist, A. Morales, S. Gaglani, S. G. Clyman

Medical Teacher: Volume 40 - Issue 8 - p 838-841

 

Adaptive learning requires frequent and valid assessments for learners to track progress against their goals. This study determined if multiple-choice questions (MCQs) “crowdsourced” from medical learners could meet the standards of many large-scale testing programs.

Posted: | I. Kirsch, W. Thorn, M. von Davier

Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 150-152

 

An introduction to a special issue of Quality Assurance in Education featuring papers based on presentations at a two-day international seminar on managing the quality of data collection in large-scale assessments.

Posted: | M. von Davier

Psychometrika 83, 847–857 (2018)

 

Utilizing algorithms to generate items in educational and psychological testing is an active area of research for obvious reasons: Test items are predominantly written by humans, in most cases by content experts who represent a limited and potentially costly resource. Using algorithms instead has the appeal to provide an unlimited resource for this crucial part of assessment development.