韩国医学考试计算机自适应测试中基于测量标准误差的停止规则的真实数据和模拟数据分析比较:心理测量学研究。

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-09 DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.18
Dong Gi Seo, Jeongwook Choi, Jinha Kim
{"title":"韩国医学考试计算机自适应测试中基于测量标准误差的停止规则的真实数据和模拟数据分析比较:心理测量学研究。","authors":"Dong Gi Seo, Jeongwook Choi, Jinha Kim","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) under 2 stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM]=0.3 and 0.25) using both real and simulated data in medical examinations in Korea.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed post-hoc simulation and real data analysis to explore the optimal stopping rule for CAT in medical examinations. The real data were obtained from the responses of 3rd-year medical students during examinations in 2020 at Hallym University College of Medicine. Simulated data were generated using estimated parameters from a real item bank in R. Outcome variables included the number of examinees’ passing or failing with SEM values of 0.25 and 0.30, the number of items administered, and the correlation. The consistency of real CAT result was evaluated by examining consistency of pass or fail based on a cut score of 0.0. The efficiency of all CAT designs was assessed by comparing the average number of items administered under both stopping rules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both SEM 0.25 and SEM 0.30 provided a good balance between accuracy and efficiency in CAT. The real data showed minimal differences in pass/ fail outcomes between the 2 SEM conditions, with a high correlation (r=0.99) between ability estimates. The simulation results confirmed these findings, indicating similar average item numbers between real and simulated data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that both SEM 0.25 and 0.30 are effective termination criteria in the context of the Rasch model, balancing accuracy and efficiency in CAT.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of real data and simulated data analysis of a stopping rule based on the standard error of measurement in computerized adaptive testing for medical examinations in Korea: a psychometric study.\",\"authors\":\"Dong Gi Seo, Jeongwook Choi, Jinha Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) under 2 stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM]=0.3 and 0.25) using both real and simulated data in medical examinations in Korea.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed post-hoc simulation and real data analysis to explore the optimal stopping rule for CAT in medical examinations. The real data were obtained from the responses of 3rd-year medical students during examinations in 2020 at Hallym University College of Medicine. Simulated data were generated using estimated parameters from a real item bank in R. Outcome variables included the number of examinees’ passing or failing with SEM values of 0.25 and 0.30, the number of items administered, and the correlation. The consistency of real CAT result was evaluated by examining consistency of pass or fail based on a cut score of 0.0. The efficiency of all CAT designs was assessed by comparing the average number of items administered under both stopping rules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both SEM 0.25 and SEM 0.30 provided a good balance between accuracy and efficiency in CAT. The real data showed minimal differences in pass/ fail outcomes between the 2 SEM conditions, with a high correlation (r=0.99) between ability estimates. The simulation results confirmed these findings, indicating similar average item numbers between real and simulated data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that both SEM 0.25 and 0.30 are effective termination criteria in the context of the Rasch model, balancing accuracy and efficiency in CAT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在利用韩国医学考试中的真实数据和模拟数据,比较和评估两种停止规则(SEM 0.3 和 0.25)下计算机化自适应测试(CAT)的效率和准确性:方法:本研究采用事后模拟和真实数据分析的方法,探讨医学考试中计算机自适应测试的最佳停止规则。真实数据来自于 2020 年韩林大学医学院三年级医学生在考试中的答卷。结果变量包括:SEM 值为 0.25 和 0.30 的及格或不及格考生人数、施测项目数和相关性。真实 CAT 结果的一致性是通过检查基于 0.0 分值的通过或未通过的一致性来评估的。通过比较两种停止规则下的平均项目数,评估了所有 CAT 设计的效率:结果:SEM 0.25 和 SEM 0.30 都很好地平衡了 CAT 的准确性和效率。真实数据显示,两种 SEM 条件下的通过/未通过结果差异极小,能力估计值之间的相关性很高(r = 0.99)。模拟结果证实了这些发现,表明真实数据和模拟数据的平均项目数相似:研究结果表明,在 Rasch 模型中,SEM 0.25 和 0.30 都是有效的终止标准,可以平衡 CAT 的准确性和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of real data and simulated data analysis of a stopping rule based on the standard error of measurement in computerized adaptive testing for medical examinations in Korea: a psychometric study.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) under 2 stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM]=0.3 and 0.25) using both real and simulated data in medical examinations in Korea.

Methods: This study employed post-hoc simulation and real data analysis to explore the optimal stopping rule for CAT in medical examinations. The real data were obtained from the responses of 3rd-year medical students during examinations in 2020 at Hallym University College of Medicine. Simulated data were generated using estimated parameters from a real item bank in R. Outcome variables included the number of examinees’ passing or failing with SEM values of 0.25 and 0.30, the number of items administered, and the correlation. The consistency of real CAT result was evaluated by examining consistency of pass or fail based on a cut score of 0.0. The efficiency of all CAT designs was assessed by comparing the average number of items administered under both stopping rules.

Results: Both SEM 0.25 and SEM 0.30 provided a good balance between accuracy and efficiency in CAT. The real data showed minimal differences in pass/ fail outcomes between the 2 SEM conditions, with a high correlation (r=0.99) between ability estimates. The simulation results confirmed these findings, indicating similar average item numbers between real and simulated data.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that both SEM 0.25 and 0.30 are effective termination criteria in the context of the Rasch model, balancing accuracy and efficiency in CAT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
期刊最新文献
The irtQ R package: a user-friendly tool for item response theory-based test data analysis and calibration. Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Generative artificial intelligence platforms emerging in 2023, journal metrics, appreciation to reviewers and volunteers, and obituary. Attraction and achievement as two attributes of gamification in healthcare: an evolutionary concept analysis. Importance, performance frequency, and predicted future importance of dietitians’ jobs by practicing dietitians in Korea: a survey study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1