| _version_ |
1860797480267939840
|
| building |
INTELEK Repository
|
| collection |
Online Access
|
| collectionurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072
|
| date |
2024-08-27 15:20:54
|
| format |
Restricted Document
|
| id |
12903
|
| institution |
UniSZA
|
| internalnotes |
1) Barman A, Ja'afar R, Rahim FA, Noor AR. Psychometric Characteristics of MCQs used in Assessing Phase-II Undergraduate Medical Students of Universiti Sains Malaysia. The Open Medical Education Journal 2010; 3: 1-4. 2) Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press, 1979. 3) Morales RA. Evaluation of Mathematics Achievement Test: A Comparison between CTT and IRT. The International Journal of Education and Psychological Assessment 2009; 1(1):19-26. 4) Smith RM. A comparison of Rasch person analysis and robust estimators. Educ Psychol Meas 1985; 45: 433-444. 5) Wright BD, Stone MH. Measurement essentials. 2nd Edition. Wilmington, Delware: Wide Range Inc., 1999. 6) Barman A. BIAS. Trail version available at http://www.rasch.org/software.htm, and www.medic.usm.my/dme/BIAS.zip 7) Hambleton RK. Emergence of item response modelling in instrument development and data analysis. Medical Care 2000; 38: 60-65. 8) Prieto L, Alonso L, Lamarca R, Wright DB. Rasch Measurement for Reducing the Items of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2(4): 285 -301. 9) Reliability and separation of measures. http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm?reliability.htm 10) Linn RL, Gronlund NE. Measurement and assessment in teaching. 8th ed. New Jersey: Printice-Hall, Inc. 2000. 11) Newble DI, Swanson DB. Psychometric characteristics of the objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ 1988; 22: 325-334. 12) Na-Tse TM. A life satisfaction questionnaire for Chinese women with schizophrenia. Hong Kong J Psychiatry 2003; 13: 7-16. 13) Taylor R, Reeves B, Mears R, Keast J, Binns S, Ewings P, Khan K. Development and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence-based practice teaching. Med Educ 2001; 35: 544-547. 14) Nnodim JO. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy. Med Educ 1992; 26: 301-309.
|
| originalfilename |
7210-01-FH02-FP-16-05586.pdf
|
| person |
Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20.6.20042
|
| recordtype |
oai_dc
|
| resourceurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=12903
|
| spelling |
12903 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=12903 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072 Restricted Document Article Journal application/pdf Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20 Paper Capture Plug-in with ClearScan 4 1.6 Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20.6.20042 2024-08-27 15:20:54 7210-01-FH02-FP-16-05586.pdf UniSZA Private Access Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items? International Medical Journal Introduction: Item analysis using Rasch measurement model provides a way of measuring the quality of questions, assess how appropriate they are for the candidates and how well they measure their ability. Methods: Multiple choice questions generated by the subject specialists and vetted at departmental and central levels were used in assessing undergraduate medical students. Twelve questions each with five true/false responses were identified from the MCQ test items used to assess the diagnostic ability of the students. One hundred undergraduate medical students who have responded to these items were randomly selected. Scores of hundred students on the 60 items were analysed using computer software BIAS. Results: Ability of the students ranges from -.561 to 2.509 and difficulty of the items ranges from -2.948 to 2.293. Twenty one items were below the ability level of the students (-.561) and ten of them were providing very little information about the students ability. The overall person reliability was .69 and separation index was 1.50 whereas item reliability was .95 and separation index was 4.51. Conclusion: Twelve questions each with 5 true/false responses are well developed to assess the diagnostic ability of the students except ten off target responses those may be rewritten or excluded from future test. 23 1 55-57 1) Barman A, Ja'afar R, Rahim FA, Noor AR. Psychometric Characteristics of MCQs used in Assessing Phase-II Undergraduate Medical Students of Universiti Sains Malaysia. The Open Medical Education Journal 2010; 3: 1-4. 2) Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press, 1979. 3) Morales RA. Evaluation of Mathematics Achievement Test: A Comparison between CTT and IRT. The International Journal of Education and Psychological Assessment 2009; 1(1):19-26. 4) Smith RM. A comparison of Rasch person analysis and robust estimators. Educ Psychol Meas 1985; 45: 433-444. 5) Wright BD, Stone MH. Measurement essentials. 2nd Edition. Wilmington, Delware: Wide Range Inc., 1999. 6) Barman A. BIAS. Trail version available at http://www.rasch.org/software.htm, and www.medic.usm.my/dme/BIAS.zip 7) Hambleton RK. Emergence of item response modelling in instrument development and data analysis. Medical Care 2000; 38: 60-65. 8) Prieto L, Alonso L, Lamarca R, Wright DB. Rasch Measurement for Reducing the Items of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Outcome Meas 1998; 2(4): 285 -301. 9) Reliability and separation of measures. http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm?reliability.htm 10) Linn RL, Gronlund NE. Measurement and assessment in teaching. 8th ed. New Jersey: Printice-Hall, Inc. 2000. 11) Newble DI, Swanson DB. Psychometric characteristics of the objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ 1988; 22: 325-334. 12) Na-Tse TM. A life satisfaction questionnaire for Chinese women with schizophrenia. Hong Kong J Psychiatry 2003; 13: 7-16. 13) Taylor R, Reeves B, Mears R, Keast J, Binns S, Ewings P, Khan K. Development and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence-based practice teaching. Med Educ 2001; 35: 544-547. 14) Nnodim JO. Multiple-choice testing in anatomy. Med Educ 1992; 26: 301-309.
|
| spellingShingle |
Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items?
|
| summary |
Introduction: Item analysis using Rasch measurement model provides a way of measuring the quality of questions, assess how appropriate they are for the candidates and how well they measure their ability. Methods: Multiple choice questions generated by the subject specialists and vetted at departmental and central levels were used in assessing undergraduate medical students. Twelve questions each with five true/false responses were identified from the MCQ test items used to assess the diagnostic ability of the students. One hundred undergraduate medical students who have responded to these items were randomly selected. Scores of hundred students on the 60 items were analysed using computer software BIAS. Results: Ability of the students ranges from -.561 to 2.509 and difficulty of the items ranges from -2.948 to 2.293. Twenty one items were below the ability level of the students (-.561) and ten of them were providing very little information about the students ability. The overall person reliability was .69 and separation index was 1.50 whereas item reliability was .95 and separation index was 4.51. Conclusion: Twelve questions each with 5 true/false responses are well developed to assess the diagnostic ability of the students except ten off target responses those may be rewritten or excluded from future test.
|
| title |
Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items?
|
| title_full |
Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items?
|
| title_fullStr |
Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items?
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items?
|
| title_short |
Testing the Test Using Rasch Measurement Model: Can Expert Vetting Ensure Quality of Test Items?
|
| title_sort |
testing the test using rasch measurement model: can expert vetting ensure quality of test items?
|