ArticleMedical science educator2025
Development of Immediate Self-Feedback Very Short Answer Questions: Implementing Testlet Response Theory in Formative Examinations Across Multiple Occasions.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The novel Immediate Self-feedback Very Short Answer Question (ISF-VSAQ) format exhibited testlet effect due to its instant feedback feature. This study utilized the testlet-as-a-polytomous-item-modeling (TPIM), an extension of item response theory, to tackle the testlet-related challenges. Methods: Ninety-four pre-clinical students participated in two ten-item ISF-VSAQ exams on cardiovascular drugs based on a parallel blueprint. Each question involves clinical vignettes followed by expected answers, self-marking, and understanding levels. Messick's validity framework guided the collection of validity evidence. Results: Validity evidence included five sources: (1) Content: Experts reviews and alignment with the standard examination blueprint. (2) Response process: Students received an example and guide of ISF-VSAQ. Self-assessment steps were also explained, and all students were provided adequate time. (3) Internal structure: Higher marginal reliability was demonstrated in the TPIM model. While unidimensionality was violated in the second ISF-VSAQ, the TPIM maintained unidimensionality. Item discrimination was generally acceptable, except for one item on the second occasion with minor vignette changes. Items with new knowledge showed better discrimination and item information functions on the second occasion. (4) Relations to other variables: Path analysis shows that the first occasion's understanding and scoring abilities strongly influenced the second occasion, highlighting the testlet effect. (5) Consequences: Path analysis revealed that the understanding ability in the second attempt directly affected the summative cardiovascular ( Conclusion: The TPIM model effectively tackles the testlet effect of the present ISF-VSAQ. Thus, when employing multiple instances of self-feedback format, analyzing it as a testlet is recommended. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02167-w.
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.