Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shea, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Webster, G. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Shea, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Webster, G. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An Application of Item Response Theory to Certifying Examinations in Internal Medicine

Judy A. Shea

John J. Norcini

George D. Webster

American Board of Internal Medicine University City Science Center

This study assessed the suitability of item response theory (IRT) for medical examination data. The specific purposes were (I) to see whether the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Certifying Examination data met IRT model assumptions and (2) to apply the one-parameter and three-parameter IRT models to the data and observe whether the expected benefits were obtained Analysis of examinees' responses to single-best-answer items supported the general assumptions of local independence, unidimensionality, and nonspeededness. The specific assumptions of the three-parameter model were met, in that items differed in discrimination and guessing. The estimated ability and item parameters were not initially as Tables as hoped, because of a few poorly estimated parameters and possibly the homogeneity of the examinee group and consequently the large number of items with poor discrimination. Future work needs to include content experts to help understand why some items do not fit and to ensure that the retained items result in a content-valid examination.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 11, No. 3, 283-305 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/016327878801100301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?