• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

朝着在渐进测试中更好地判断项目相关性的方向发展。

Toward a better judgment of item relevance in progress testing.

机构信息

Faculty of Health, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419, DJ, Heerlen, The Netherlands.

Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 60, 6229, ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2017 Sep 5;17(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0989-x.

DOI:10.1186/s12909-017-0989-x
PMID:28870176
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5584338/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Items must be relevant to ensure item quality and test validity. Since "item relevance" has not been operationalized yet, we developed a rubric to define it. This study explores the influence of this rubric on the assessment of item relevance and on inter-rater agreement.

METHODS

Members of the item review committee (RC) and students, teachers, and alumni (STA) reassessed the relevance of 50 previously used progress test (PT) items and decided about their inclusion using a 5-criteria rubric. Data were analyzed at item level using paired samples t-tests, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and linear regression analysis, and at rater level in a generalizability analysis per group.

RESULTS

The proportion of items that the RC judged relevant enough to be included decreased substantially from 1.00 to 0.72 (p < 0.001). Agreement between the RC and STA was high, with an ICC of >0.7 across items. The relation between inclusion and relevance was strong (correlation = 0.89, p < 0.001), and did not differ between RC and STA. To achieve an acceptable inter-rater reliability for relevance and inclusion, 6 members must serve on the RC.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the rubric results in a stricter evaluation of items' appropriateness for inclusion in the PT and facilitates agreement between the RC and other stakeholders. Hence, it may help increase the acceptability and validity of the PT.

摘要

背景

项目必须相关,以确保项目质量和测试有效性。由于“项目相关性”尚未付诸实践,我们开发了一个评分标准来定义它。本研究探讨了该评分标准对项目相关性评估和评分者间一致性的影响。

方法

项目审查委员会(RC)成员和学生、教师和校友(STA)重新评估了 50 项先前使用的进展测试(PT)项目的相关性,并使用 5 项标准评分标准决定是否纳入。使用配对样本 t 检验、组内相关系数(ICC)和线性回归分析在项目水平上对数据进行分析,并在每个组的可概括性分析中在评分者水平上进行分析。

结果

RC 认为足够相关以纳入的项目比例从 1.00 大幅下降到 0.72(p<0.001)。RC 和 STA 之间的一致性很高,ICC 大于 0.7。纳入和相关性之间的关系很强(相关系数为 0.89,p<0.001),RC 和 STA 之间没有差异。为了实现相关性和纳入的可接受评分者间可靠性,RC 必须有 6 名成员。

结论

使用评分标准对项目纳入 PT 的适当性进行更严格的评估,并促进 RC 和其他利益相关者之间的一致性。因此,它可能有助于提高 PT 的可接受性和有效性。

相似文献

1
Toward a better judgment of item relevance in progress testing.朝着在渐进测试中更好地判断项目相关性的方向发展。
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Sep 5;17(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0989-x.
2
Critical thinking evaluation in reflective writing: Development and testing of Carter Assessment of Critical Thinking in Midwifery (Reflection).反思性写作中的批判性思维评估:《卡特助产批判性思维评估(反思)》的开发与测试
Midwifery. 2017 Nov;54:73-80. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.08.003. Epub 2017 Aug 18.
3
Development of a simulation evaluation tool for assessing nursing students' clinical judgment in caring for children with dehydration.开发一种用于评估护理专业学生在照顾脱水儿童时临床判断力的模拟评估工具。
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Feb;37:45-52. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.011. Epub 2015 Nov 19.
4
Validation of the 5-item doctor-patient communication competency instrument for medical students (DPCC-MS) using two years of assessment data.使用两年的评估数据验证医学生医患沟通能力五分量表(DPCC-MS)。
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Oct 26;17(1):189. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1026-9.
5
Development and validation of Dutch version of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in hospital practice: An instrument design study.《荷兰版拉萨特临床判断评分标准在医院实践中的开发与验证:一项工具设计研究》
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Mar;62:43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.12.013. Epub 2017 Dec 23.
6
Assessing the reliability, validity, and use of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric: three approaches.评估 Lasater 临床判断量表的可靠性、有效性和使用:三种方法。
J Nurs Educ. 2012 Feb;51(2):66-73. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20111130-03. Epub 2011 Nov 30.
7
Validity of a new assessment rubric for a short-answer test of clinical reasoning.一种用于临床推理简答题测试的新评估量表的效度
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Jul 26;16:192. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0714-1.
8
Checklist-Style Rubric Development for Practical Examination of Clinical Skills in Entry-Level Physical Therapist Education.检查表式临床技能实践考试评分标准在物理治疗师入门教育中的开发。
J Allied Health. 2020 Fall;49(3):202-207.
9
Assessing the validity of the USMLE step 2 clinical knowledge examination through an evaluation of its clinical relevance.通过评估美国医师执照考试第二步临床知识考试的临床相关性来评估其有效性。
Acad Med. 2004 Oct;79(10 Suppl):S43-5. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200410001-00013.
10
Developing Validity Evidence for the Written Pediatric History and Physical Exam Evaluation Rubric.为书面儿科病史与体格检查评估量规建立效度证据。
Acad Pediatr. 2017 Jan-Feb;17(1):68-73. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.08.001. Epub 2016 Aug 10.

本文引用的文献

1
Progress testing: critical analysis and suggested practices.进展性测试:批判性分析与建议做法
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 Mar;21(1):221-34. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9587-z. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
2
The use of progress testing.使用进展测试。
Perspect Med Educ. 2012 Mar;1(1):24-30. doi: 10.1007/s40037-012-0007-2. Epub 2012 Mar 10.
3
A systemic framework for the progress test: strengths, constraints and issues: AMEE Guide No. 71.一个针对进展测试的系统框架:优势、限制和问题:AMEE 指南第 71 号。
Med Teach. 2012;34(9):683-97. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.704437.
4
Assessment of medical knowledge: the pros and cons of using true/false multiple choice questions.医学知识评估:使用是非选择题的利弊
Natl Med J India. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):225-8.
5
Student perceptions of the progress test in two settings and the implications for test deployment.学生对两种环境下进展测试的看法,以及对测试部署的启示。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Oct;17(4):573-83. doi: 10.1007/s10459-011-9334-z. Epub 2011 Nov 1.
6
Choosing and designing knowledge assessments: experience at a new medical school.选择和设计知识评估:一所新医学院的经验。
Med Teach. 2010;32(7):578-81. doi: 10.3109/01421591003614858.
7
Progress testing in clinical science education: results of a pilot project between the National Board of Medical Examiners and a US Medical School.临床科学教育中的进展性测试:美国一所医学院与国家医师考试委员会之间的试点项目的结果。
Med Teach. 2010;32(6):503-8. doi: 10.3109/01421590903514655.
8
Progress testing in postgraduate medical education.研究生医学教育中的进展性考核。
Med Teach. 2009 Oct;31(10):e464-8. doi: 10.3109/01421590902849545.
9
Clinical judgment development: using simulation to create an assessment rubric.临床判断能力的培养:利用模拟创建评估量表。
J Nurs Educ. 2007 Nov;46(11):496-503. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20071101-04.
10
Differences in knowledge development exposed by multi-curricular progress test data.多课程进展测试数据揭示的知识发展差异。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Dec;13(5):593-605. doi: 10.1007/s10459-007-9066-2. Epub 2007 May 4.