PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J B Erdmann

Publications and source records attributed to J B Erdmann.

32 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Background essential to the proper use of results of step 1 and step 2 of the USMLE.

This first of the four-part set of articles published in this issue provides general information and concepts about the Step 1 and Step 2 examinations of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) needed for the proper use of these tests' results in three general, related, non-licensure applications: for the evaluation of the examinees' levels of academic achievement, for the evaluation of educational programs the examinees have experienced, and for the selection of examinees into residency programs. Several aspects of the tests are discussed: (1) their original and continuing purpose (which is to assess certain qualifications required for licensure of physicians); (2) their content; (3) their format and the emphases (relative to knowledge or skills testing) that different formats can give, and the concept that the ways the same content areas are formatted in a test will produce different results; (4) test administration, with a discussion of "speeded" versus "power" tests and the organization of test items by difficulty and by (or not by) topic; (5) reliability, with a discussion of standard error and the importance of understanding measurement error in order to discern real differences in scores; (6) scoring, with definition of anchor scores; and (7) interpretation, with discussions of pass/fail criteria in the past, present, and future of the USMLE tests. The authors close by saying that to interpret test performance properly, it is important not only to bear in mind the ideas in the present article but also to carefully review an actual test or at least a representative sample of test questions.

Educational Measurement↗
PubMed1993

Use of the USMLE to select residents.

Many studies have examined the relationships between students' performances on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Part I and Part II examinations and their postgraduate clinical performances. Most studies have found a positive relationship between students' NBME examination scores and the ratings of residents' clinical performances and/or scores on specialty board certification examinations. Surveys of residency directors have also shown that NBME scores are used as part of the process for selecting residents, although other data and other selection criteria are considered more useful than the NBME scores. One area of continued concern is that a large body of data on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is not yet available. However, the predictive validity of the NBME scores supports the use of USMLE scores as part of the review process to screen potential residents. Residency directors should continue to use a variety of criteria in their final selection decisions and are encouraged to use their own program-specific data to establish and monitor particular cutoff scores for screening applicants.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1992

Comparing the accuracies of entire-group and subgroup models to predict NBME-I scores for medical school applicants.

To address the question of whether prediction models for subgroups of medical school applicants lead to more accurate predictions of performance than does one model for an entire group of applicants, the authors used data from two groups of students at Jefferson Medical College: 415 students who entered Jefferson in 1985 and 1986, and 396 who entered in 1987 and 1988. Both groups were divided into two subgroups by gender and two subgroups by age. Data from the first group were used to develop prediction models based on the entire group and on its four subgroups. The predictors were undergraduate grade-point averages and Medical College Admission Test scores; the criterion measures were scores on the National Board of Medical Examiners Part I examinations. The prediction models were then applied to data from the second group and its four subgroups: differences in the validity coefficients (.40 to .56) and residual scores (7.2 to 17.9) were not considered to be of practical importance. Hence, the authors suggest that gender and age do not contribute to a prediction bias and that an entire-group prediction model can be used without serious concern for over-or underestimating the predicted scores.

Adult↗
PubMed1980

Validating the MCAT.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Educational Measurement↗
PubMed1975

Personality dimensions as assessed by projective and verbal instruments.

An attempt was made to explore personality dimensions with projective and verbal tests. The Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (RDS) were administered to 161 college students of both sexes. A description of the canonical correlations between the two subsets of projective and verbal instruments is presented, as well as three separate factor analyses, one of the HIT, another of the CPI-RDS and the third of the HIT and CPI-RDS together. The results support the conclusion that, with the exception of one factor that includes HIT and CPI-RDS variables, the HIT factors have no relationship with the CPI-RDS factors. Furthermore, of the 19 canonical correlations only the first is significant.

Adolescent↗