Using rasch measurement to score, evaluate, and improve examinations in an anatomy course

Any examination that involves moderate to high stakes implications for examinees should be psychometrically sound and legally defensible. Currently, there are two broad and competing families of test theories that are used to score examination data. The majority of instructors outside the high‐stake...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anatomical sciences education 2014-11, Vol.7 (6), p.450-460
Main Authors: Royal, Kenneth D., Gilliland, Kurt O., Kernick, Edward T.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anatomy
Anatomy - education
Construct Validity
Educational Measurement - methods
evaluation
Evaluation Methods
Evaluation Research
examinations
gross anatomy education
High Stakes Tests
Higher Education
Item Response Theory
Measurement Techniques
Medical Education
Program Improvement
Program Validation
Psychometrics
rasch measurement
Robustness (Statistics)
Scoring
Scoring Rubrics
Student Evaluation
students assessments
Test Theory
Testing
Testing Programs
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Any examination that involves moderate to high stakes implications for examinees should be psychometrically sound and legally defensible. Currently, there are two broad and competing families of test theories that are used to score examination data. The majority of instructors outside the high‐stakes testing arena rely on classical test theory (CTT) methods. However, advances in item response theory software have made the application of these techniques much more accessible to classroom instructors. The purpose of this research is to analyze a common medical school anatomy examination using both the traditional CTT scoring method and a Rasch measurement scoring method to determine which technique provides more robust findings, and which set of psychometric indicators will be more meaningful and useful for anatomists looking to improve the psychometric quality and functioning of their examinations. Results produced by the more robust and meaningful methodology will undergo a rigorous psychometric validation process to evaluate construct validity. Implications of these techniques and additional possibilities for advanced applications are also discussed. Anat Sci Educ 7: 450–460. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists.
ISSN:1935-9772
1935-9780
DOI:10.1002/ase.1436