library bookshelves

RESEARCH LIBRARY

View the latest publications from members of the NBME research team

Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Research Library Publications
Posted: | M.R. Raymond, C. Stevens, S.D. Bucak

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.

Posted: | S. H. Felgoise, R. A. Feinberg, H. B. Stephens, P. Barkhaus, K. Boylan, J. Caress, Z. Simmons

Muscle Nerve, 58: 646-654

 

The Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)‐Specific Quality of Life instrument and its revised version (ALSSQOL and ALSSQOL‐R) have strong psychometric properties, and have demonstrated research and clinical utility. This study aimed to develop a short form (ALSSQOL‐SF) suitable for limited clinic time and patient stamina.

Posted: | K. Short, S. D. Bucak, F. Rosenthal, M. R. Raymond

Academic Medicine: May 2018 - Volume 93 - Issue 5 - p 781-785

 

In 2007, the United States Medical Licensing Examination embedded multimedia simulations of heart sounds into multiple-choice questions. This study investigated changes in item difficulty as determined by examinee performance over time. The data reflect outcomes obtained following initial use of multimedia items from 2007 through 2012, after which an interface change occurred.

Posted: | I. Kirsch, W. Thorn, M. von Davier

Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 150-152

 

An introduction to a special issue of Quality Assurance in Education featuring papers based on presentations at a two-day international seminar on managing the quality of data collection in large-scale assessments.

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.