A comparative study of a comprehensive basic sciences test using paper- and-pencil and computerized formats

Academic Medicine

Volumn 73, Issue 10 SUPPL., 1998, Pages

  Luecht, Richard M ^a   Hadadi, Amrita ^b   Swanson, David B ^b   Case, Susan M ^b  

^a NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; AUTOMATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031720302     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199810000-00043     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Mead AD, Drasgow F. Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil tests cognitive ability tests: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1993;14:449-58.
2. Bergstrom BA, Lunz ME. The equivalence of Rasch item calibrations and ability estimates across modes of administration. In Wilson M (ed). Objective Measurement: Theory into Practice. Vol. 2 Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994, pp 122-8.
3. Wise SL, Plake BS. Research on administering tests via computers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices. 1989;8:5-10.
4. Sykes RC, Ito K. The effects of computer administration on scores and item parameter estimates of an IRT-based licensure examination. Appl Psychol Meas. 1997;21:51-64.
5. Hadadi A, Luecht RM. Psychometric mode effects and fit issues with respect to item difficulty estimates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL, 1997.
6. NBME. Summary of the 1997 USMLE Step 1 Computerized Field Test. The National Board Examiner. Fall 1997;1-4.
7. Case SM, Luecht RM, Swanson DB. Design and automated assembly of test forms for the USMLE Step 1 field test. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA, 1998.
8. Hadadi A, Luecht RM, Swanson DB, Case SM. Study 1: effects of modular subtest structure and item review on examinee performance, perceptions and pacing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA, 1998.
9. Luecht RM, Nungester RJ, Swanson DB, Hadadi A. Study 2: examinee performance, perceptions and pacing on a computer-adaptive sequential test. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA, 1998.
10. Swanson DB, Luecht RM, Gessaroli ME, Nungester RJ. Study 3: impact of systematic manipulation of subtest difficulty on examinee performance, perceptions and pacing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA, 1998.
11. Green BF, Bock RD, Humphreys LG, Linn RL, Reckase MD. Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal Educ Meas. 1984;21:347-60.
12. Federation of State Medical Boards, National Board of Medical Examiners. 1997 Step 1: General Instructions, Content Description, and Sample Items. Philadelphia, PA: FSMB and NBME Joint Publication, 1996.
13. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates, 1980.