140 likes | 358 Views
Statistics of EBO 2010 Examination EBO General Assembly Sunday June 21st, 2010 (Tallin, Estonia). Danny G.P. Mathysen MSc. Biomedical Sciences EBOD Assessment and Executive Officer
E N D
Statistics of EBO 2010 ExaminationEBO General AssemblySunday June 21st, 2010 (Tallin, Estonia) Danny G.P. MathysenMSc. Biomedical Sciences EBOD Assessment and Executive Officer Antwerp University Hospital, Department of OphthalmologyWilrijkstraat 10, B-2650 Edegem, BelgiumE-mail: danny.mathysen@uza.be
Score calculation for Written Paper EBOD 2010 Candidate Population • Written examination (MCQs) • 310 candidates • Oral examination • 308 candidates • 1 candidate did not show up for Viva Voce • 1 candidate did show only for some of the Viva Voce topics
Score calculation for Written Paper EBOD 2010 Scoring rules • Question Number (1 52) • Item Number (A E) • T (True) • F (False) • D (Don’t know) Marks obtained? +1 In case ONLY the correct answer was completed 0 In case ONLY the D option was completed –0.5 In case ONLY the incorrect answer was completed In case T AND F werecompleted In case NOTHING was completed (blank item) In case D was COMBINEDwith T and/or F
Score calculation for Written Paper EBOD 2010 Scoring rules • Candidate score for MCQ-1(simulation): • A True (Correct Answer: True) +1 • B False (Correct Answer: False) +1 • C True (Correct Answer: True) +1 +2.5 • D Don’t know (Correct Answer: True) 0 • E True (Correct Answer: False) –0.5
EBOD 2010 Negative Marking • Advantages for EBO candidates of T/F items • Reliable in case of translation (English, French, German) choice of language will not result in being (dis)advantaged • Accessibility (e.g. dyslexia) not too complicated for candidates • Duration of the examination stress level of candidates can be kept to a minimum • Relatively easy to process results can be presented on-site • Disadvantage for EBO candidates of T/F items • Probability of guessing right = 50 % level of weakest candidates is overestimated ( oral examination)
EBOD 2010 Negative Marking • Hypothesis on the influence of negative marking • Average scores will drop (punishment of incorrect answers) • Spread of candidate scores will enlarge ( room for discrimination) • Rit-value of individual items will increase • Reliability of EBOD will increase • Argument against negative marking expressed by European Board of Anaesthesiology • Negative marking is discriminating towards female candidates
EBOD 2010 Spread of Scores NEGATIVE MARKINGAT EBOD 2010 2010 2009 • How to overcome the disadvantages of T/F items? • Introduction of negative marking • Increase of discriminative power of examination • Reduction of guess factor • wild guesses will be punished (weakest candidates) • guesses by reasoning (partial knowledge) will be rewarded 0 260
Score calculation for Written Paper EBOD 2010 Statistical Output (SpeedWell)
EBOD 2010 Degree of Difficulty • EBOD 2009 • Degree of Difficulty (P-value) of 0.79 (overestimated due to guessing) • Estimation of a large proportion of candidates guessing (> 33 %) • EBOD 2010 • Introduction of the “Don’t know” option reduction of wild guesses used on average for 15 % of items (or 39 items) per candidate • Degree of Difficulty (P-value) of 0.66
EBOD 2010 Point Biserial Correlation correlation betweenitem and total MCQ score 0.18 0.14 • Point biserial correlation coefficient (Rit) • Estimator of the correlation betweenthe individual item scores Xi(either -0.5, 0 or 1), andthe total MCQ scores Yi(ranging from 61.5 to 209) of the candidates -1 0 +1
EBOD 2010 Internal Consistency internal consistencyof EBOD MCQ-test is good • Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (r) = 0.87 (2009: 0.78) • Estimator of the lower bound of the internal consistency(degree to which all MCQs leaves are measuring the same, i.e. knowledge of candidates) of EBOD 2010 (95% CI: 0.86 – 0.89)
EBOD 2010 Male vs. Female Candidates • EBOD 2010 Written Examination • 310 Candidates • 168 Male Candidates • 142 Female Candidates • Percentage of candidates using the “Don’t know” option • Male candidates: used on average for 13% of items (34 items) • Female candidates: used on average for 16% of items (42 items) • Statistically significant (p = 0.02)
EBOD 2010 Male vs. Female Candidates • Average absolute candidate scores • Male candidates: 148.21 • Female candidates: 143.36 • NOTstatistically significant (p > 0.05) • Distribution of converted candidate scores (1-10) • NOT statistically significant (p > 0.05) when comparing all scores • NOT statistically significant (p > 0.05) when comparing ≤ 5 versus ≥ 6
EBOD 2010 Negative Marking: Conclusions • In general: • Average scores dropped (204.11 145.99) • Spread of results became larger (13.0 24.8) • Internal consistency (Cronbach-α) improved (0.78 0.87) • P-value was less overestimated due to D option (0.79 0.66) • Rit-value improved (0.14 0.18) • When comparing male and female candidates: • Female candidates (D option ticked for 42 items on average) are more prudent when guessing is concerned compared to male candidates(D option ticked for 34 items on average) (p = 0.02) • However, without negative impact on ability to pass EBOD 2010!