ArticleBMC medical education2018
Using differential item functioning to evaluate potential bias in a high stakes postgraduate knowledge based assessment.
Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties and detectability of GPT-4o-generated multiple-choice questions compared with human-authored items across imaging specialties.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the use of Rasch modelling in "common content" items for multi-site and multi-year assessment.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Article
- Big data analysis: examination of the relationship between candidates' sociodemographic characteristics and performance in the UK's Membership of the Royal College of Physicians Part 1 examination.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Article
- Differential attainment at national selection for higher surgical training: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Differential attainment in assessment of postgraduate surgical trainees: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Differential Performance of Social Communication Questionnaire Items in African American/Black vs. White Children.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- Article
- The do's, don'ts and don't knows of redressing differential attainment related to race/ethnicity in medical schools.Perspectives on medical education · 2022Review
- Article
- Investigating possible causes of bias in a progress test translation: an one-edged sword.Korean journal of medical education · 2019Article
- Fitness to practise sanctions in UK doctors are predicted by poor performance at MRCGP and MRCP(UK) assessments: data linkage study.BMC medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFairness is a critical component of defensible assessment. Candidates should perform according to ability without influence from background characteristics such as ethnicity or sex. However, performance differs by candidate background in many assessment environments. Many potential causes of such differences exist, and examinations must be routinely analysed to ensure they do not present inappropriate progression barriers for any candidate group. By analysing the individual questions of an examination through techniques such as Differential Item Functioning (DIF), we can test whether a subset of unfair questions explains group-level differences. Such items can then be revised or removed.
methodsWe used DIF to investigate fairness for 13,694 candidates sitting a major international summative postgraduate examination in internal medicine. We compared (a) ethnically white UK graduates against ethnically non-white UK graduates and (b) male UK graduates against female UK graduates. DIF was used to test 2773 questions across 14 sittings.
resultsAcross 2773 questions eight (0.29%) showed notable DIF after correcting for multiple comparisons: seven medium effects and one large effect. Blinded analysis of these questions by a panel of clinician assessors identified no plausible explanations for the differences. These questions were removed from the question bank and we present them here to share knowledge of questions with DIF. These questions did not significantly impact the overall performance of the cohort. Group-level differences in performance between the groups we studied in this examination cannot be explained by a subset of unfair questions.
conclusionsDIF helps explore fairness in assessment at the question level. This is especially important in high-stakes assessment where a small number of unfair questions may adversely impact the passing rates of some groups. However, very few questions exhibited notable DIF so differences in passing rates for the groups we studied cannot be explained by unfairness at the question level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.