A comparison of alternative item weighting strategies on the data gathering component of a clinical skills performance assessment

Checklist scores used to produce the data gathering score on the Step 2 CS examination are currently weighted using an algorithm based on expert judgment about the importance of the item. The present research was designed to compare this approach with alternative weighting strategies. Scores from 21...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic Medicine 2008-10, Vol.83 (10 Suppl), p.S72-S75
Hauptverfasser: Kahraman, Nilufer, Clauser, Brian E, Margolis, Melissa J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page S75
container_issue 10 Suppl
container_start_page S72
container_title Academic Medicine
container_volume 83
creator Kahraman, Nilufer
Clauser, Brian E
Margolis, Melissa J
description Checklist scores used to produce the data gathering score on the Step 2 CS examination are currently weighted using an algorithm based on expert judgment about the importance of the item. The present research was designed to compare this approach with alternative weighting strategies. Scores from 21,140 examinees who took the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 between May 2006 and February 2007 were subjected to five weighting models: (1) a regression weights model, (2) a factor loading weights model, (3) a standardized response model, (4) an equal weights model, and (5) the operational expert-judgment weights model. Alternative weighting procedures may have a significant impact on the reliability and validity of checklist scores. The results suggest that the current weighting procedure is useful, and the regression-based model holds promise for practical application. The regression-based model produces scores that are more reliable than those produced by the current procedure and more strongly related to the external criteria.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183e1ac
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69600934</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69600934</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-52a2a1c840abe613d57789c6ede7ae669d4f5ec766dfdf9ca20560bdff11263f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1PGzEQhq2qqIS0_6BCPvW2Ybze9XqPUUQBCcSlSNxWE-84cdmP4HFAPfafs4FIlXqa9_C8jzSvEN8VLBTU1cVydbeANShNWlllNSl0n8RM1dpmFuzj5ylDAVleFOZUnDH_BgBTlfqLOFXW5lCCmYm_S-nGfocx8DjI0UvsEsUBU3ghGRL18pXCZpvCsJGcIibaBGI5sWlLssWEcoNTjAfgYBoHGtK7SLouDMFhJ_kpdB3LHUU_xh4HRxKZibmf2K_ixGPH9O145-Lh5-Wv1XV2e391s1reZk6XKmVljjkqZwvANRml27KqbO0MtVQhGVO3hS_JVca0vvW1w-lBA-vWe6Vyo72eix8f3l0cn_fEqekDO-o6HGjcc2NqA1DrYgKLD9DFkTmSb3Yx9Bj_NAqaw_TNNH3z__RT7fzo3697av-VjlvrN7nLhIg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69600934</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of alternative item weighting strategies on the data gathering component of a clinical skills performance assessment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Kahraman, Nilufer ; Clauser, Brian E ; Margolis, Melissa J</creator><creatorcontrib>Kahraman, Nilufer ; Clauser, Brian E ; Margolis, Melissa J</creatorcontrib><description>Checklist scores used to produce the data gathering score on the Step 2 CS examination are currently weighted using an algorithm based on expert judgment about the importance of the item. The present research was designed to compare this approach with alternative weighting strategies. Scores from 21,140 examinees who took the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 between May 2006 and February 2007 were subjected to five weighting models: (1) a regression weights model, (2) a factor loading weights model, (3) a standardized response model, (4) an equal weights model, and (5) the operational expert-judgment weights model. Alternative weighting procedures may have a significant impact on the reliability and validity of checklist scores. The results suggest that the current weighting procedure is useful, and the regression-based model holds promise for practical application. The regression-based model produces scores that are more reliable than those produced by the current procedure and more strongly related to the external criteria.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-2446</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-808X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183e1ac</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18820506</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Clinical Competence - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Cohort Studies ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Humans ; Judgment ; Licensure, Medical ; Models, Statistical ; Psychometrics ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; United States</subject><ispartof>Academic Medicine, 2008-10, Vol.83 (10 Suppl), p.S72-S75</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-52a2a1c840abe613d57789c6ede7ae669d4f5ec766dfdf9ca20560bdff11263f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-52a2a1c840abe613d57789c6ede7ae669d4f5ec766dfdf9ca20560bdff11263f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18820506$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kahraman, Nilufer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clauser, Brian E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Margolis, Melissa J</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of alternative item weighting strategies on the data gathering component of a clinical skills performance assessment</title><title>Academic Medicine</title><addtitle>Acad Med</addtitle><description>Checklist scores used to produce the data gathering score on the Step 2 CS examination are currently weighted using an algorithm based on expert judgment about the importance of the item. The present research was designed to compare this approach with alternative weighting strategies. Scores from 21,140 examinees who took the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 between May 2006 and February 2007 were subjected to five weighting models: (1) a regression weights model, (2) a factor loading weights model, (3) a standardized response model, (4) an equal weights model, and (5) the operational expert-judgment weights model. Alternative weighting procedures may have a significant impact on the reliability and validity of checklist scores. The results suggest that the current weighting procedure is useful, and the regression-based model holds promise for practical application. The regression-based model produces scores that are more reliable than those produced by the current procedure and more strongly related to the external criteria.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Clinical Competence - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Factor Analysis, Statistical</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Licensure, Medical</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1040-2446</issn><issn>1938-808X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1PGzEQhq2qqIS0_6BCPvW2Ybze9XqPUUQBCcSlSNxWE-84cdmP4HFAPfafs4FIlXqa9_C8jzSvEN8VLBTU1cVydbeANShNWlllNSl0n8RM1dpmFuzj5ylDAVleFOZUnDH_BgBTlfqLOFXW5lCCmYm_S-nGfocx8DjI0UvsEsUBU3ghGRL18pXCZpvCsJGcIibaBGI5sWlLssWEcoNTjAfgYBoHGtK7SLouDMFhJ_kpdB3LHUU_xh4HRxKZibmf2K_ixGPH9O145-Lh5-Wv1XV2e391s1reZk6XKmVljjkqZwvANRml27KqbO0MtVQhGVO3hS_JVca0vvW1w-lBA-vWe6Vyo72eix8f3l0cn_fEqekDO-o6HGjcc2NqA1DrYgKLD9DFkTmSb3Yx9Bj_NAqaw_TNNH3z__RT7fzo3697av-VjlvrN7nLhIg</recordid><startdate>20081001</startdate><enddate>20081001</enddate><creator>Kahraman, Nilufer</creator><creator>Clauser, Brian E</creator><creator>Margolis, Melissa J</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20081001</creationdate><title>A comparison of alternative item weighting strategies on the data gathering component of a clinical skills performance assessment</title><author>Kahraman, Nilufer ; Clauser, Brian E ; Margolis, Melissa J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c351t-52a2a1c840abe613d57789c6ede7ae669d4f5ec766dfdf9ca20560bdff11263f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Clinical Competence - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Factor Analysis, Statistical</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Licensure, Medical</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kahraman, Nilufer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clauser, Brian E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Margolis, Melissa J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kahraman, Nilufer</au><au>Clauser, Brian E</au><au>Margolis, Melissa J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of alternative item weighting strategies on the data gathering component of a clinical skills performance assessment</atitle><jtitle>Academic Medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Med</addtitle><date>2008-10-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>83</volume><issue>10 Suppl</issue><spage>S72</spage><epage>S75</epage><pages>S72-S75</pages><issn>1040-2446</issn><eissn>1938-808X</eissn><abstract>Checklist scores used to produce the data gathering score on the Step 2 CS examination are currently weighted using an algorithm based on expert judgment about the importance of the item. The present research was designed to compare this approach with alternative weighting strategies. Scores from 21,140 examinees who took the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 between May 2006 and February 2007 were subjected to five weighting models: (1) a regression weights model, (2) a factor loading weights model, (3) a standardized response model, (4) an equal weights model, and (5) the operational expert-judgment weights model. Alternative weighting procedures may have a significant impact on the reliability and validity of checklist scores. The results suggest that the current weighting procedure is useful, and the regression-based model holds promise for practical application. The regression-based model produces scores that are more reliable than those produced by the current procedure and more strongly related to the external criteria.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>18820506</pmid><doi>10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183e1ac</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-2446
ispartof Academic Medicine, 2008-10, Vol.83 (10 Suppl), p.S72-S75
issn 1040-2446
1938-808X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69600934
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive; Journals@Ovid Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Algorithms
Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data
Cohort Studies
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Humans
Judgment
Licensure, Medical
Models, Statistical
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
United States
title A comparison of alternative item weighting strategies on the data gathering component of a clinical skills performance assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T14%3A23%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20alternative%20item%20weighting%20strategies%20on%20the%20data%20gathering%20component%20of%20a%20clinical%20skills%20performance%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Academic%20Medicine&rft.au=Kahraman,%20Nilufer&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=10%20Suppl&rft.spage=S72&rft.epage=S75&rft.pages=S72-S75&rft.issn=1040-2446&rft.eissn=1938-808X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183e1ac&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69600934%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69600934&rft_id=info:pmid/18820506&rfr_iscdi=true