Advertisement
-
1.
McNevin, AJ . :Action agenda for the 1990s: reflections on directions for podiatric medical education. .JAPMA 82::286. ,1992. .
-
2.
McNevin, AJ, CE Gill, and MG North. :Podiatric medical education: a view into the next century. .JAPMA 86::354. ,1996. .
-
3.
Stritter, FT and M Becker. :Research and practice in medical education. .JAPMA 83::314. ,1993. .
-
4.
Schwarz, MR and A Wojtczak. :Global minimum essential requirements: a road towards competence-oriented medical education. .Med Teach 24::125. ,2002. .
-
5.
Bhakta, B, A Tennant, M Horton, et al. :Using item response theory to explore the psychometric properties of extended matching questions examination in undergraduate medical education. .BMC Med Educ 5::9. ,2005. .
-
6.
Wass, V, C Van der Vleuten, J Shatzer, et al. :Assessment of clinical competence. .Lancet 357::945. ,2001. .
-
7.
National Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners : “Guidelines for the Content of Items. ,” inItem Writing Guide for the NBPME Part I Basic Science Examination. , p4. ,Prometric. ,Baltimore, MD. ,2008. .
-
8.
Facione, PA . :Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. ,American Philosophical Association. ,Newark, DE. ,1990. .
-
9.
D’Antoni, AV, GP Zipp, and VG Olson. :Interrater reliability of the mind map assessment rubric in a cohort of medical students. .BMC Med Educ 9::19. ,2009. .
-
10.
D’Antoni, AV, GP Zipp, VG Olson, et al. :Does the mind map learning strategy facilitate information retrieval and critical thinking in medical students? BMC Med Educ 10::61. ,2010. .
-
11.
Miller, DA, JZ Sadler, PC Mohl, et al. :The cognitive context of examinations in psychiatry using Bloom’s taxonomy. .Med Educ 25::480. ,1991. .
-
12.
Palmer, EJ and PG Devitt. :Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: modified essay or multiple choice questions? BMC Med Educ 7::49. ,2007. .
-
13.
Case, SM and DB Swanson. : “Multiple-Choice-Item Formats. ,” inConstructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences, ,3rd Ed. (Rev), ed byCase, SM and DB Swanson. , p13. ,National Board of Medical Examiners. ,Philadelphia. ,2002. .
-
14.
Norcini, JJ, DB Swanson, LJ Grosso, et al. :Reliability, validity and efficiency of multiple choice question and patient management problem item formats in assessment of clinical competence. .Med Educ 19::238. ,1985. .
-
15.
Swanson, DB, KZ Holtzman, BE Clauser, et al. :Psychometric characteristics and response times for one-best-answer questions in relation to number and source of options. .Acad Med 80::S93. ,2005. .
-
16.
Case, SM and DB Swanson. : “Extended-Matching (R-Type) Items. ,” inConstructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences, ,3rd Ed. (Rev), ed byCase, SM and DB Swanson. , p71. ,National Board of Medical Examiners. ,Philadelphia. ,2002. .
-
17.
Case, SM and DB Swanson. :Extended matching items: a practical alternative to free response questions. .Teach Learn Med 5::107. ,1993. .
-
18.
Swanson, DB, KZ Holtzman, and K Allbee. :Measurement characteristics of content-parallel single-best-answer and extended-matching questions in relation to number and source of options. .Acad Med 83::S21. ,2008. .
-
19.
Beullens, J, B Van Damme, H Jaspaert, et al. :Are extended-matching multiple-choice items appropriate for a final test in medical education? Med Teach 24::390. ,2002. .
-
20.
Case, SM and DB Swanson. : “Introduction. ,” inConstructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences, ,3rd Ed. (Rev), ed byCase, SM and DB Swanson. , p9. ,National Board of Medical Examiners. ,Philadelphia. ,2002. .
-
21.
National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners :NBOME Item-Writing Guide 2006–2007. ,Chicago. ,2006. .
-
22.
Collins, J . :Education techniques for lifelong learning: writing multiple-choice questions for continuing medical education activities and self-assessment modules. .Radiographics 26::543. ,2006. .
-
23.
Tulane University School of Medicine Office of Medical Education :Test & Item Analysis (interactive PowerPoint presentation), Tulane Exams, Assessment Resources .Available at: http://tulane.edu/som/ome/pd-exams-test-item-analysis-module.cfm. .Accessed September 10, 2012.
-
24.
Case, SM and DB Swanson. : “Technical Item Flaws. ,” inConstructing Written Test Questions for the Basic and Clinical Sciences, ,3rd Ed. (Rev), ed byCase, SM and DB Swanson. , p19. ,National Board of Medical Examiners. ,Philadelphia. ,2002. .
-
25.
Wenger, SL, GR Hobbs, HJ Williams, et al. :Medical student study habits: practice questions help exam scores. .J Int Assoc Med Sci Educ 19::170. ,2009. .
Psychometric Properties and Podiatric Medical Student Perceptions of USMLE-style Items in a General Anatomy Course
Background:
In 2010, the New York College of Podiatric Medicine general anatomy course was redesigned to emphasize clinical anatomy. Over a 2-year period, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)–style items were used in lecture assessments with two cohorts of students (N =200). Items were single-best-answer and extended-matching formats. Psychometric properties of items and assessments were evaluated, and anonymous student post-course surveys were administered.
Methods:
Mean grades for each assessment were recorded over time and compared between cohorts using analysis of variance. Correlational analyses were used to investigate the relationship between final course grades and lecture examinations. Post-course survey response rates for the cohorts were 71 of 97 (73%) and 81 of 103 (79%).
Results:
The USMLE-style items had strong psychometric properties. Point biserial correlations were 0.20 and greater, and the range of students answering the items correctly was 25% to 75%. Examinations were highly reliable, with Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficients of 0.71 to 0.76. Students (>80%) reported that single-best-answer items were easier than extended-matching items. Students (>76%) believed that the items on the quizzes/examinations were similar to those found on USMLE Step 1. Most students (>84%) believed that they would do well on the anatomy section of their boards (American Podiatric Medical Licensing Examination [APMLE] Part I).
Conclusions:
Students valued USMLE-style items. These data, coupled with the psychometric data, suggest that USMLE-style items can be successfully incorporated into a basic science course in podiatric medical education. Outcomes from students who recently took the APMLE Part I suggest that incorporation of USMLE-style items into the general anatomy course was a successful measure and prepared them well. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 102(6): 517–528, 2012)
