• 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

2018年MIR考试:心理测量学研究及与过去九年的比较。

The MIR 2018 Exam: Psychometric Study and Comparison with the Previous Nine Years.

作者信息

Baladrón Jaime, Sánchez Lasheras Fernando, Romeo Ladrero José María, Villacampa Tomás, Curbelo José, Jiménez Fonseca Paula, García Guerrero Alberto

机构信息

Curso Intensivo MIR Asturias, c/ Quintana 11A, 33005 Oviedo, Spain.

Mathematics Department, Faculty of Sciences, University of Oviedo, c/ Federico García Lorca 18, 33007 Oviedo, Spain.

出版信息

Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Nov 20;55(12):751. doi: 10.3390/medicina55120751.

DOI:10.3390/medicina55120751
PMID:31756983
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6956110/
Abstract

: The aim of the present research is to study the questions used in the 2018 MIR exam (a test that allows access to specialized medical training in Spain), describe their psychometric properties, and evaluate their quality. : This analysis is performed with the help of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT). The answers given to the test questions by a total of 3868 physicians are analyzed. : According to CTT, the average difficulty index for all of the test questions was 0.629, which falls into the acceptable category. The average difficulty index with correction for random effects was 0.515, which corresponds to a value within the optimal range. The mean discrimination index was 0.277, which is in the good category, while the mean point biserial correlation coefficient, with a value of 0.275 fits in the regular category. The values of difficulty and discrimination calculated according to the model of two parameters of the IRT seem adequate with average values of -0.389 and 0.677. The Cronbach alpha score obtained for the overall test was 0.944. This value is considered as very good. : A decrease was observed in the average values of discrimination in the last three calls, which may be related to the greater proportion of Spanish graduates that take the exam in the same year of finalization of their studies in Medicine.

摘要

本研究的目的是研究2018年MIR考试(一项允许进入西班牙专业医学培训的考试)中使用的问题,描述其心理测量特性,并评估其质量。本分析借助经典测试理论(CTT)和项目反应理论(IRT)进行。分析了总共3868名医生对测试问题给出的答案。根据CTT,所有测试问题的平均难度指数为0.629,属于可接受类别。校正随机效应后的平均难度指数为0.515,对应于最佳范围内的值。平均区分指数为0.277,属于良好类别,而平均点二列相关系数值为0.275,属于一般类别。根据IRT的双参数模型计算的难度和区分值似乎足够,平均值分别为-0.389和0.677。整个测试获得的克朗巴哈α系数为0.944。该值被认为非常好。在最后三次考试中,观察到区分平均值有所下降,这可能与同年医学专业毕业的西班牙毕业生参加考试的比例较高有关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1219/6956110/919042356301/medicina-55-00751-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1219/6956110/919042356301/medicina-55-00751-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1219/6956110/919042356301/medicina-55-00751-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
The MIR 2018 Exam: Psychometric Study and Comparison with the Previous Nine Years.2018年MIR考试:心理测量学研究及与过去九年的比较。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Nov 20;55(12):751. doi: 10.3390/medicina55120751.
2
The relationship between classical item characteristics and item response time on computer-based testing.基于计算机测试中经典项目特征与项目反应时间之间的关系。
Korean J Med Educ. 2019 Mar;31(1):1-9. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2019.113. Epub 2019 Mar 1.
3
A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education.医学教育评估中的经典测量理论和项目反应理论简介。
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):109-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03425.x.
4
Improving the ability to discriminate medical multiple-choice questions through the analysis of the competitive examination to assign residency positions in Spain.通过分析西班牙住院医师分配竞争考试来提高医学选择题的辨别能力。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Apr 3;24(1):367. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05324-2.
5
Is a picture worth a thousand words: an analysis of the difficulty and discrimination parameters of illustrated vs. text-alone vignettes in histology multiple choice questions.一幅图胜过千言万语:组织学选择题中带插图与纯文本小病例的难度及区分度参数分析
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Oct 26;15:184. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0452-9.
6
Approximate Functional Relationship between IRT and CTT Item Discrimination Indices: A Simulation, Validation, and Practical Extension of Lord's (1980) Formula.IRT与CTT项目区分度指标之间的近似函数关系:对洛德(1980年)公式的模拟、验证及实际拓展
J Appl Meas. 2017;18(4):393-407.
7
State of the psychometric methods: comments on the ISOQOL SIG psychometric papers.心理测量方法的现状:对国际生活质量研究学会(ISOQOL)特别兴趣小组心理测量论文的评论
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Jul 30;3(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0134-1.
8
Post-examination interpretation of objective test data: monitoring and improving the quality of high-stakes examinations: AMEE Guide No. 66.客观测试数据的考后解读:监测和提高高风险考试的质量:AMEE 指南第 66 号。
Med Teach. 2012;34(3):e161-75. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.651178.
9
Quality of multiple-choice questions in medical internship qualification examination determined by item response theory at Debre Tabor University, Ethiopia.埃塞俄比亚德布雷塔博尔大学运用项目反应理论确定医学实习资格考试多项选择题的质量。
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Aug 22;22(1):635. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03687-y.
10
Item analysis: the impact of distractor efficiency on the difficulty index and discrimination power of multiple-choice items.项目分析:干扰项效率对多项选择题难度指数和区分度的影响。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Apr 24;24(1):445. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05433-y.

引用本文的文献

1
The impact of COVID-19 pre-university education on first-grade medical students. A performance study of students of a Department of Histology.新冠疫情前大学教育对一年级医学生的影响。组织学系学生的表现研究。
Anat Sci Educ. 2025 Mar;18(3):254-263. doi: 10.1002/ase.2551. Epub 2025 Jan 11.

本文引用的文献

1
The popularity of neurology in Spain: An analysis of specialty selection.西班牙神经病学的受欢迎程度:专业选择分析
Neurologia (Engl Ed). 2020 Oct;35(8):543-550. doi: 10.1016/j.nrl.2017.10.011. Epub 2017 Dec 24.
2
Endocrinology and nutrition: Evolution of the choice of specialty in the last years.内分泌学与营养学:近年来专业选择的演变
Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr. 2017 Jun-Jul;64(6):329-331. doi: 10.1016/j.endinu.2017.02.007. Epub 2017 Mar 21.
3
Gastroenterology - Evolution of specialty choice in recent years.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2017 Sep;109(9):614-618. doi: 10.17235/reed.2017.4977/2017.
4
Choice of the specialty of diagnostic radiology by results of the competitive examination to assign residency positions from 2006 to 2015.2006年至2015年通过竞争性考试分配住院医师职位的结果来看诊断放射学专业的选择情况。
Radiologia. 2017 May-Jun;59(3):232-246. doi: 10.1016/j.rx.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Apr 28.
5
Choice of critical care medicine: Analysis of the last 10 years.重症医学的选择:过去十年分析
Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2018 Jan-Feb;42(1):65-68. doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2017.02.006. Epub 2017 Mar 18.
6
Technical flaws in multiple-choice questions in the access exam to medical specialties ("examen MIR") in Spain (2009-2013).西班牙医学专业准入考试(“MIR考试”,2009 - 2013年)中多项选择题的技术缺陷
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Feb 3;16:47. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0559-7.
7
[Access tests to specialized health training for doctors and other healthcare professionals in Spain: examining the exam and the examined candidates].
Gac Sanit. 2012 May-Jun;26(3):231-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.09.020. Epub 2011 Dec 22.