Showing 1 - 5 of 5 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: | 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.