Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29615016›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

Using differential item functioning to evaluate potential bias in a high stakes postgraduate knowledge based assessment.

David Hope, Karen Adamson, I C McManus, Liliana Chis, Andrew Elder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David HopeCentre for Medical Education, The Chancellor's Building, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH16 4SB, UK. david.hope@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6623-2857
Karen AdamsonMedical Unit, St John's Hospital, Livingston, Scotland, EH54 6PP, UK.
I C McManusResearch Department of Medical Education, The Medical School, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Liliana ChisMRCPUK Central Office, 11 St Andrew's Place, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4LE, UK.
Andrew ElderMRCPUK Central Office, 11 St Andrew's Place, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4LE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

RacismSexismAcademic PerformanceCohort StudiesEducational MeasurementEthnicityFemaleHumansInternal MedicineMaleUnited KingdomWhite PeopleXenophobiaAssessmentBiasFairness

Identifiers

PMID29615016
PMCPMC5883583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.