Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Hanin Rashid, Christopher Runyon, Jesse Burk-Rafel, Monica M. Cuddy, Liselotte Dyrbye, Katie Arnhart, Ulana Luciw-Dubas, Hilit F. Mechaber, Steve Lieberman, Miguel Paniagua

Academic Medicine: Volume 97 - Issue 11S - Page S176

 

As Step 1 begins to transition to pass/fail, it is interesting to consider the impact of score goal on wellness. This study examines the relationship between goal score, gender, and students’ self-reported anxiety, stress, and overall distress immediately following their completion of Step 1.

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.