Showing 31 - 39 of 39 Research Library Publications
Posted: | M. von Davier, J. H. Shin, L. Khorramdel, L. Stankov

Applied Psychological Measurement: Volume: 42 issue: 4, page(s): 291-306

 

The research presented in this article combines mathematical derivations and empirical results to investigate effects of the nonparametric anchoring vignette approach proposed by King, Murray, Salomon, and Tandon on the reliability and validity of rating data. The anchoring vignette approach aims to correct rating data for response styles to improve comparability across individuals and groups.

Posted: | D. Jurich, L. M. Duhigg, T. J. Plumb, S. A. Haist, J. L. Hawley, R. S. Lipner, L. Smith, S. M. Norby

CJASN May 2018, 13 (5) 710-717

 

Medical specialty and subspecialty fellowship programs administer subject-specific in-training examinations to provide feedback about level of medical knowledge to fellows preparing for subsequent board certification. This study evaluated the association between the American Society of Nephrology In-Training Examination and the American Board of Internal Medicine Nephrology Certification Examination in terms of scores and passing status.

Posted: | Z. Jiang, M.R. Raymond

Applied Psychological Measurement: Volume: 42 issue: 8, page(s): 595-612

 

Conventional methods for evaluating the utility of subscores rely on reliability and correlation coefficients. However, correlations can overlook a notable source of variability: variation in subtest means/difficulties. Brennan introduced a reliability index for score profiles based on multivariate generalizability theory, designated as G, which is sensitive to variation in subtest difficulty. However, there has been little, if any, research evaluating the properties of this index. A series of simulation experiments, as well as analyses of real data, were conducted to investigate G under various conditions of subtest reliability, subtest correlations, and variability in subtest means.

Posted: | S. D. Stites, J. D. Rubright, J. Karlawish

Alzheimer's & Dementia, 14: 925-932

 

The purpose of this survey is to understand how the prevalence of beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about Alzheimer's disease dementia in the public could inform strategies to mitigate stigma.

Posted: | B. Michalec, M. M. Cuddy, P. Hafferty, M. D. Hanson, S. L. Kanter, D. Littleton, M. A. T. Martimianakis, R. Michaels, F. W. Hafferty

Med Educ, 52: 359-361

 

Focusing specifically on examples set in the context of movement from Bachelor's level undergraduate programmes to enrolment in medical school, this publication argues that a great deal of what happens on college campuses today, curricular and otherwise, is (in)directly driven by the not‐so‐invisible hand of the medical education enterprise.

Posted: | R.A. Feinberg, D. Jurich, J. Lord, H. Case, J. Hawley

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2018 45:3, 381-387

 

This study uses item response data from the November–December 2014 and April 2015 NAVLE administrations (n =5,292), to conduct timing analyses comparing performance across several examinee subgroups. The results provide evidence that conditions were sufficient for most examinees, thereby supporting the current time limits. For the relatively few examinees who may have been impacted, results suggest the cause is not a bias with the test but rather the effect of poor pacing behavior combined with knowledge deficits.

Posted: | Monica M. Cuddy, Aaron Young, Andrew Gelman, David B. Swanson, David A. Johnson, Gerard F. Dillon, Brian E. Clauser

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.

Posted: | M. C. Edwards, A. Slagle, J. D. Rubright, R. J. Wirth

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.

Posted: | K. Walsh, P. Harik, K. Mazor, D. Perfetto, M. Anatchkova, C. Biggins, J. Wagner

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.