Twelve tips to aid interpretation of post-assessment psychometric reports

References

• Ackerman P, Beier M, et al. 2006. Methods for studying the structure of expertise: psychometric approaches. In: Ericsson K, Charness N, Feltovich P, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association APA, & National Council on Measurement in Education. 2014. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington (DC): American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Biddle R. 1993. How to set cutoff scores for knowledge tests used in promotion, training, certification, and licensing. Public Personnel Manage. 22(1):63–79. doi: 10.1177/009102609302200105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandon P. 2004. Conclusions about frequently studied modified angoff standard-setting topics. Appl Measure Educ. 17(1):59–88. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1701_4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs S, Cheek M. 1986. The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. J Personality. 54(1):106–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cizek G. 1996. Standard setting guidelines. Educ Measure Issues Pract. 15(1):13–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1996.tb00802.x.
   Google Scholar
• Clark L, Watson D. 1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment. 7(3):309–319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebel R. 1965. Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice–Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• General Medical Council. 2015. Approving changes to curricula, examinations and assessments: equality and diversity requirements. Manchester: General Medical Council.
   Google Scholar
• Gullikson H. 1950. Theory of mental tests. New York: Willy.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton R. 2001. Setting performance standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In: Cizek G, editor. Setting performance standards: concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc; p. 88–116.
   Google Scholar
• Lowe D. 1991. Set a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination. BMJ. 302(6779):780–782. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6779.780.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacDonald M. 2018. Guides to assessing learning outcomes. USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Miller M, Linn R, Gronlund N. 2013. Measurement and assessment in teaching. London: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond M, Stevens C, Bucak S. 2019. The optimal number of options for multiple‑choice questions on high‑stakes tests: application of a revised index for detecting nonfunctional distractors. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 24(1):141–150. doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9855-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds C, Livingston R, Wilson B. 2008. Measurement and assessment in education. Boston (MA): Ally & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez MC. 2005. Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: a meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educ Measurement Issues Pract. 24(2):3–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00006.x.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley J. 1971. Reliability. In: Thorndike R, editor. Educational measurement. Washington (DC): American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick B, Fidell L. 2013. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Brigitte E, Wetzel A. 2022. Feedback to support examiners’ understanding of the standard-setting process and the performance of students: AMEE Guide No. 145. Med Teach. 44(6):582–595. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2021.1993164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Dennick R. 2013. Psychometric evaluation of a knowledge-based examination using Rasch analysis: an illustrative guide: AMEE Guide No. 72. Med Teach. 35(1):e838–e848. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.737488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Dennick R. 2016. Postexamination analysis: a means of improving the exam cycle. Acad Med. 91(9):1324. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Dennick R. 2018. Postexamination analysis: the item characteristic curve. Acad Med. 93(5):811. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakol M, Dennick R. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2:53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tavakol M, O'Brien D. 2022. Psychometrics for physicians: everything a clinician needs to know about assessments in medical education. Int J Med Educ. 13:100–106. doi: 10.5116/ijme.625f.bfb1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar