Premium
Using rasch measurement to score, evaluate, and improve examinations in an anatomy course
Author(s) -
Royal Kenneth D.,
Gilliland Kurt O.,
Kernick Edward T.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
anatomical sciences education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.126
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1935-9780
pISSN - 1935-9772
DOI - 10.1002/ase.1436
Subject(s) - rasch model , test (biology) , construct (python library) , educational measurement , psychometrics , item response theory , construct validity , set (abstract data type) , psychology , quality (philosophy) , polytomous rasch model , medical education , classical test theory , medical physics , applied psychology , clinical psychology , computer science , medicine , curriculum , developmental psychology , pedagogy , paleontology , philosophy , epistemology , biology , programming language
Any examination that involves moderate to high stakes implications for examinees should be psychometrically sound and legally defensible. Currently, there are two broad and competing families of test theories that are used to score examination data. The majority of instructors outside the high‐stakes testing arena rely on classical test theory (CTT) methods. However, advances in item response theory software have made the application of these techniques much more accessible to classroom instructors. The purpose of this research is to analyze a common medical school anatomy examination using both the traditional CTT scoring method and a Rasch measurement scoring method to determine which technique provides more robust findings, and which set of psychometric indicators will be more meaningful and useful for anatomists looking to improve the psychometric quality and functioning of their examinations. Results produced by the more robust and meaningful methodology will undergo a rigorous psychometric validation process to evaluate construct validity. Implications of these techniques and additional possibilities for advanced applications are also discussed. Anat Sci Educ 7: 450–460. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists.