RESEARCH LIBRARY
RESEARCH LIBRARY
View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team
Teaching and Learning in Medicine: Volume 33 - Issue 4 - p 366-381
The purpose of this analysis is to describe these sources of evidence that can be used to evaluate the quality of generated items. The important role of medical expertise in the development and evaluation of the generated items is highlighted as a crucial requirement for producing validation evidence.
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.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 223, Issue 3, Pages 435.e1-435.e6
The purpose of this study was to examine medical student reporting of electronic health record use during the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship.
Integrating Timing Considerations to Improve Testing Practices
This chapter addresses a different aspect of the use of timing data: it provides a framework for understanding how an examinee's use of time interfaces with time limits to impact both test performance and the validity of inferences made based on test scores. It focuses primarily on examinations that are administered as part of the physician licensure process.
J Gen Intern Med 34, 705–711 (2019)
This study examines medical student accounts of EHR use during their internal medicine (IM) clerkships and sub-internships during a 5-year time period prior to the new clinical documentation guidelines.
Adv in Health Sci Educ 24, 141–150 (2019)
Research suggests that the three-option format is optimal for multiple choice questions (MCQs). This conclusion is supported by numerous studies showing that most distractors (i.e., incorrect answers) are selected by so few examinees that they are essentially nonfunctional. However, nearly all studies have defined a distractor as nonfunctional if it is selected by fewer than 5% of examinees.