Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36590939›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Psychometric evaluation of a national exam for clinical undergraduates.

Yuting Han, Zhehan Jiang, Jinying Ouyang, Lingling Xu, Ting Cai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuting HanInstitute of Medical Education, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Zhehan JiangInstitute of Medical Education, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Jinying OuyangInstitute of Medical Education, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Lingling XuInstitute of Medical Education, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Ting CaiGraduate School of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As a high-stake national-level examination administrated before students' clerkship in China, the Standardized Competence Test for Clinical Medicine Undergraduates (SCTCMU) has received much attention from the relevant educational departments and society at large. Investigating SCTCMU's validity and reliability is critical to the national healthcare profession education. Materials and methods: Raw responses from SCTCMU, answered by 44,332 examines of 4th-year undergraduate medical students on 300 multiple-choice items, were used to evaluate the quality of the exam Results: The IRT models were fitted to the observed assessment data, where all the required assumptions were met. The IRT analysis showed that most items had acceptable psychometric properties, and the passing score was located close to the lowest measurement error computed from the model outcomes. Conclusion: The proposed modern psychometric method provides a practical and informative approach to calibrating and analyzing medical education assessments. This work showcases a realistic depiction of the IRT analysis process and therefore facilitates the work of applied researchers wanting to conduct, interpret, and report IRT analyses on medical assessments.

Indexed as

item analysesitem response theory (IRT)medical examinationpsychometricsquality controltest information

Identifiers

PMID36590939
PMCPMC9794566
OpenAlexW4311496642

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.