PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7441674

Reliability and validity studies on modified essay questions.

Abstract

Modified essay questions (MEQs) have been developed at the University of Newcastle to assess clinical problem-solving by first- and second-year medical students. Reliability estimates (given as coefficient alpha [60]) as high as 0.91 were reported for term assessment in 1979 based on MEQs. Lower estimates can be expected as statistical artifacts due to the faculty's criterion-referenced assessment of competence. More appropriate measures of reliability are currently being evaluated. The validity of assessment by MEQ was based on one model of medical problem-solving and another of cognitive skill taxonomies. Internal consistency estimates (coefficient alpha) based on each model yielded some interesting anomalies on the nature of problem-solving which may be reexamined in terms of cognitive preference indexes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G I Feletti. 1980. Reliability and validity studies on modified essay questions.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198011000-00006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗