RESEARCH LIBRARY
RESEARCH LIBRARY
View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team
Academic Medicine: Volume 99 - Issue 3 - p 325-330
This retrospective cohort study investigates the association between United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and outcomes in 196,881 hospitalizations in Pennsylvania over 3 years.
Academic Medicine: Volume 99 - Issue 2 - p 192-197
This report investigates the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) agents, exemplified by ChatGPT, to perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), following reports of its successful performance on sample items.
Academic Medicine: Volume 99 - Issue 7 - Pages 778-783
This study examined score comparability between in-person and remote proctored administrations of the 2020 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysis of data from 27,115 IM residents revealed statistically significant but educationally nonsignificant differences in predicted scores, with slightly larger variations observed for first-year residents. Overall, performance did not substantially differ between the two testing modalities, supporting the continued use of remote proctoring for the IM-ITE amidst pandemic-related disruptions.
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health, 19(1)
This review is a descriptive summary of the development of National EM M4 examinations, Version 1 (V1) and Version 2 (V2), and the NBME EM Advanced Clinical Examination (ACE) and their relevant usage and performance data. In particular, it describes how examination content was edited to affect desired changes in examination performance data and offers a model for educators seeking to develop their own examinations.
The authors examined the extent to which USMLE scores relate to the odds of receiving a disciplinary action from a U.S. state medical board.
Qual Life Res 27, 1711–1720 (2018)
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as part of its regulatory mission, is charged with determining whether a clinical outcome assessment (COA) is “fit for purpose” when used in clinical trials to support drug approval and product labeling. This paper provides a review (and some commentary) on the current state of affairs in COA development/evaluation/use with a focus on one aspect: How do you know you are measuring the right thing? In the psychometric literature, this concept is referred to broadly as validity and has itself evolved over many years of research and application.
Medical Care: April 2017 - Volume 55 - Issue 4 - p 436-441
The objective of this study is to identify modifiable factors that improve the reliability of ratings of severity of health care–associated harm in clinical practice improvement and research.