Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2007 Annual Conference Quality Assurance and Regulatory Excellence Carol Morrison, Elizabeth Azari National Board of Medical Examiners Lynn Webb Testing.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "2007 Annual Conference Quality Assurance and Regulatory Excellence Carol Morrison, Elizabeth Azari National Board of Medical Examiners Lynn Webb Testing."— Presentation transcript:

1 2007 Annual Conference Quality Assurance and Regulatory Excellence Carol Morrison, Elizabeth Azari National Board of Medical Examiners Lynn Webb Testing Consultant

2 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Creator of Early Quality Assurance Procedures Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

3 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference He made a list, And checked it TWICE Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

4 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference AND THEN….Got independent verification Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

5 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference In a nutshell Make a list Check it twice Get independent verification Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

6 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Sequence of Presentations Quality Assurance in Test Development (Lynn Webb) Quality Assurance in Test Administration (Elizabeth Azari) Quality Assurance in Scoring and Score Reporting (Carol Morrison)

7 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Ultimate Frisbee Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

8 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Have you played? Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

9 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Setting the Scene: Ultimate Frisbee "This is no wobbly game of lob and catch: passing is fast moving, deadly accurate…" Time Out, UK Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

10 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference In a Nutshell The thrill of rugby, without the bloodshed! Lynn Webb, 2007 Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

11 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference The Game Ultimate is played between two teams of seven players on a large rectangular pitch. A line drawn across the pitch at either end creates two "end zones" (like in American Football). These are the goal-scoring areas. A goal is scored when a team completes a pass to a player standing (or more likely running) in the end zone they are attacking. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

12 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Players cannot run with the disc. When you get the disc you must come to a stop and try to throw it to another player. By passing from player to player, the offense attempts to work the disc up the pitch towards the end zone they are attacking. If the disc hits the ground or is intercepted or knocked down by the other team, then the opposition takes possession. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

13 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference The defending team attempts to stop the team with the disc from making progress up-field by marking them (as in soccer or basketball). Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

14 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Examinations Ultimate Frisbee Rules of the Game (self- assessment) Ultimate Frisbee Observer Certification Examination Ultimate Frisbee Player Certification Examination Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

15 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Observer Certification Examination Each of the three examinations followed the typical test development cycle. Im going to focus on the results of the Observer Certification Examination Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

16 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Session Assumes Familiarity with TD Cycle Job analysis Test specifications Question writing Test Assembly Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

17 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Job analysis: Preventing Problems Load effort into the front end (logical analysis) so things will turn out well in the validation (survey) Front end efforts include job shadowing, literature searches, focus groups, structured brainstorming, etc. Validation from the field (survey) must be representative and thorough Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

18 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference (More about the survey) Survey contains all the content –Include write-in to cover anything you missed –(Yes, its cumbersome, but what if you missed something?) Proofread the survey (creator and independent verification) Pilot test the survey (directions, timing, vocabulary, usability issues) Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

19 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Test Specifications: Preventing Problems Must be tied to the job analysis Consider all test users –Candidates for Observer credential –Test question writers –Employers of Observers –Fans Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

20 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference (More about Test Specs) Content domains should be distinct Questions should fit into one domain (not all) Think ahead to when you will want to inventory the bank of questions according to the test specifications (e.g., how many questions do we have in domain 1?) Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

21 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Sample Section of Test Specs 2 Rules of play –2.1 Objective –….. –2.6 Gameplay The pull or throw-off Movement of the disc Scoring Change of possession Stoppages of play – Fouls Violations – Time outs and half-time – Injuries Substitutions Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

22 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Question Writing: Preventing Problems Questions must be tied to the test specifications Question writers should be content experts and should receive training –Goals of the testing program –Item formats to use –Examples of great and poor questions –Feedback Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

23 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference (More about question writing) Items must be reviewed for content –Accuracy –Clarity –Currency Items must be style-edited Items must be reviewed for bias/sensitivity Items must be pilot-tested (or pretested) Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

24 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Test Assembly: Preventing Problems Assembly must be tied to Test Specifications –Make the list –Check it twice –The specs are published – its your promise to the candidates Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

25 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference (More about test assembly) Review drafts to ensure absence of confounding variables –Too many items on certain topic –Too many items of certain format or type –Enemy items –Usability or format issues Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

26 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Hypothetical Case #1 After credentialing the first group of candidates, it is noted that inappropriate calls are made by certified Observers throughout the national tournament. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

27 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference What happened? It is discovered that the Observers were throwing the games to cash in on bets estimated at $800,000 per game. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

28 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference TD Processes to Promote Success Front-end planning in the job analysis study is essential. There can be critical components of the credential that arent part of the knowledge of content. In this case, ETHICS was overlooked. –Ethics (or other non-content considerations) can be incorporated into the test, or into eligibility requirements, or into signed attestations, etc. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

29 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Hypothetical Case #2 The passing rate for the Observer Certification Examination takes an unexpected dip on Form #3, even though the items were pre-equated to ensure similar difficulty level to forms 1 and 2. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

30 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference What happened? The test specifications were met in test assembly, but the item writers were trained in writing RECALL and APPLICATION questions. Form 3 contained all application items and candidates became fatigued, performing less well than expected on the test. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

31 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference TD Steps to Promote Success Review drafts to ensure absence of confounding variables –Cognitive level (recall / application of knowledge) –Another dimension of content –Type of question or format Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

32 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Hypothetical Case #3 Form 4 of the examination is ready to be printed (or published) and there are only 149 questions instead of 150. Staff bump into each other trying to figure out how the list of 150 is only producing 149 items. Tempers flare and accusations are launched. The test developer is sure the committee selected the correct # of items. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

33 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference What happened? Some electronic item banking systems are prone to versionitis unless carefully timed procedures are followed. The committee of content experts selected Form 4 before Form 3 was analyzed and scored. One of the items selected for both forms was thrown out during a key verification step for Form 3 (candidates all scored as correct). The item was deleted from the bank. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

34 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference TD Steps to Promote Success Make a list, check it twice, get independent verification! In the case of items being used across forms for statistical equating, a step on the list of procedures would be to ensure that the overlapping items are still viable for use in the new form. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

35 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference To Err is Human So make a list. Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

36 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference True Quality Assurance Someone else checks your list, twice Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

37 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Speaker Contact Information Lynn C. Webb, Ed.D. Testing Consultant Chicago (847) or Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation

38 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Quality Assurance Steps For The Ultimate In Test Administration Web-based delivery of the 60-item Rules of the Game Self Assessment (e.g., at home or Internet café, not proctored, 30-day window, 1 form) Pencil and paper delivery of the 150-item Observer Certification Exam (multiple locations, proctored, one-day window, 1 form) CBT delivery of the 200-item Player Certification Exam (CBT centers, proctored, two- week window, 2 forms)

39 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation QA Considerations for all Delivery Methods Preventing Problems: Preparing the site –Site setup requirements, proctor instructions, vendor expectations, home computer requirements Preparing the candidate –Communicating testing rules, documentation required to test, info for tech support and troubleshooting Maintaining security before, during and after the test –Special considerations for each delivery method

40 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation QA Considerations for All (cont.) Mitigating problems Anticipate problems / find solutions (before, on and after test day) Capture test day events (encouraging consistent and descriptive proctor reports; recording specific technical problems during WBT) Transmit relevant test day data to scoring (do you understand which data are important?) Turn lessons learned into preventative measures for the future

41 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Specific WBT Considerations Why web-based for self-assessment? –Candidate convenience (choose time, location) –Instant candidate feedback –Low stakes exam with fewer consequences if problems arise –Perception: less costly for the program to administer, but depends on support needs What are some drawbacks? –Vagaries of the Internet, multiple platforms to support –Staffing to manage candidate problems –Security

42 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation WBT Hypothetical Case Candidate L (for last-minute) has had a month to take his self-assessment, but has never logged on to take it. At 4:00 p.m., on day 30 of his 30-day window, he realizes that he has forgotten his authorization code. Without it, he cannot log on. He intends to take the exam sometime after 8:00 that evening.

43 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation WBT Hypothetical Case Candidate L takes your sage advice and tries to access the exam immediately (it is now 4:30) using his newly provided authorization code. He discovers that he can get to some information screens, but he is having trouble accessing the exam. In another phone call to you, he comes to realize that his computer does not meet the system requirements for this exam.

44 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation WBT Hypothetical Case Candidate L finds another computer and successfully logs on to take the self- assessment at 9:00 p.m. At 9:30, only part-way through, his computer screen freezes. He is not sure what to do. He worries that if he reboots, some or all of his answers will be lost. He calls the support number provided (thank goodness he printed that out at 4:30), but receives no answer.

45 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation WBT Practices to Promote Success Preparing for Administration Success –Provide technical specifications to candidates –Provide a systems check to help candidates assess basic computer readiness in advance and provide a simple tutorial –Create printable, easy to find FAQs to help candidates troubleshoot –Discourage procrastination! –Be sure that support staff have power and information to assist –Before offering to candidates, take a dry run of the self-assessment in the production environment (vary computers and locations) –Keep the exam short

46 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation WBT Considerations What about security? – Consider this a non-secure administration Do you care whether the person actually testing is the person you authorized to test? (Proxy testing or cheating on a self-assessment?!) How important is the release of your self- assessment test material to unauthorized persons and what will you do to prevent it? Solutions (electronic proctoring?)

47 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation WBT Considerations (cont.) Impact on performance feedback if a problem (How to handle partial or incomplete results?) Problem reports (Do you have a standard protocol for support staff to report reporting problems, including pre- identified descriptive categories?) Contingency plan for late takers (Will you extend the window for a month long self-assessment?)

48 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Specific P & P Considerations Why pencil and paper delivery for the one-day Observer Certification exam? –Relatively consistent testing conditions –Security controls (control exam shipments, proctored, ability to see ID candidates throughout process) –Convenience of location (e.g., training program locations) –What can go wrong with printed materials? ( ) What are some drawbacks? –Proctor identification and training –Manual handling of materials –Test day problems that may require more than a 1 day window

49 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Hypothetical Case On test day, the proctor opens the packages of test booklets and distributes them to candidates. When instructed, the candidates open their booklets only to find that some of the booklets are missing pages. Some are also missing answer sheets.

50 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Hypothetical Case Your candidates are testing when a fire alarm sounds and you hear an announcement to evacuate the building. What are your next steps?

51 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Hypothetical Case It was just a fire drill, so your candidates are back to resume testing. Eventually, time is called at the end of the first half of the exam, but candidate W (for wants to quit her desk job) continues to enter answers on her sheet. Two other examinees start to talk about the exam.

52 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Practices to Promote Success For Administration Success, Prepare Proctors: Identify proctors early and provide clear proctors manual (require certification that proctor read/familiar?) Be sure to provide examples of test day problems and what to do about them Control shipment of materials and provide for return shipment Ship using traceable method to designated persons (monitor) Require proctors to timely count and report number of books/answer sheets received Provide additional test books in each shipment Provide a standardized proctor report form for all locations Provide pre-test and test day support and contact information Be sure to plan for non-standard administrations (e.g., in some cases, examinees granted test accommodations may need a separate proctor)

53 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Practices (cont.) and Prepare Candidates: Inform candidates of required information for admission Inform candidates of basic test timing (section times and break times, if any) Inform candidates of testing rules well ahead of time Remind them of the timing and rules on test day (scripted instructions by proctor, laminated sheet or post basic instructions)

54 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Practices (cont.) and Plan for Security: –Store booklets in secure, locked area with restricted access –Identify potential breaches immediately –Require authorization document and ID to test –Prohibit extraneous items in center and provide all equipment (e.g., pencil, calculator) –Consider whether a break is necessary and plan for break protocols –Use proper room setup with enough proctors in each room –Have emergency evacuation protocols in place –Report test day candidate irregular behavior immediately and in detail

55 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Considerations You need to transmit relevant data to scoring: –Problem reports Do you have a standard protocol for proctors to report reporting problems, including pre-identified descriptive categories? Does each report include relevant data for scoring needs? Can they be easily sorted by category?

56 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation P & P Considerations You need to have contingency plans (or a policy) for no- shows and partial takers: –Will you extend the one-day window for a no-show and, if so, how will you handle the fact that there is just one form that others have seen? Will you have a proctor on standby and a site available? –For partial takers because of illness or other disruption, how will you handle the fact that the examinee saw and took part of it already?

57 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Specific CBT Considerations Why CBT for the Player Certification Exam delivered over a two-week window? –Consistent testing conditions (test center design, equipment, staff) –Security (its their business to hire, train proctors, provide secure testing environment, protect the integrity of the exam) –Able to handle longer windows –Reporting (standard forms of reports and categories) What are some drawbacks? –Risks of computer problems / equipment failure –Logistics & complexity (managing various exam programs scheduling needs, learning new sets of rules, systems integration) –Travel to sites / site availability (closure, storms)

58 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Hypothetical Case Several of your candidates have scheduled to test on the last day of the test window at a local test center. Two days before their test day, the test center is found to have a serious structural problem, requiring immediate repair work. Your candidates will not be able to test at the center as scheduled.

59 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Hypothetical Case Candidate U (for ultimate player, of course) is in the middle of testing when his computer crashes. He hails the proctor, who comes to his workstation to reboot the computer. While at the workstation, the proctor notices that Candidate U has a wallet on his workstation and a cell phone jutting from his pocket. (Neither is permitted in the testing room.) Candidate U is convinced that he lost some of his responses because of the crash.

60 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Practices to Promote Success For Administration Success, Prepare the Vendor: –Communicate specific exam program needs –Provide necessary program & candidate information promptly (includes test accommodations granted) –Make a dry run with new exam material to be sure it works as you expect in a test center –Work to resolve issues that arise before the test date –Establish regular communication to iron out issues (technical and routine operational calls)

61 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Practices (cont.) –Establish clear guidelines re: the extent of the vendors authority to act vis-à-vis responding to candidate queries and other communications, candidate eligibility periods and authorizations to test, etc. –Establish an emergency contact protocol between the exam program and the vendor to handle last-minute problems –Establish a specific timeline for return of test center reports and candidate exam outcomes

62 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Practices (cont.) and Prepare Candidates: –Communicate what the candidate needs to bring (and should not bring) to the test center –Communicate how to schedule the exam –Tell the candidate whom to contact in the event of a problem before, during or after test day –Encourage prompt candidate action and establish deadlines for candidate activity

63 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Practices (cont.) and Plan for Security: –Work closely with the vendor –Establish written procedures for reporting incidents –Have internal and cooperative procedures for investigation of reported test administration problems

64 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation CBT Considerations You need to transmit relevant data to scoring: –Test center reports Does each test center report include relevant data for scoring needs? Can they be easily, automatically sorted by category?

65 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Using Experience to Inform Future Administrations Turning lessons learned into preventative measures for the future –Documenting (update manuals, include in vendor discussions, update best practices) –Training (staff, proctors, vendor, candidates )

66 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Speaker Contact Information Elizabeth D. Azari, JD Associate Vice President, Examinee Support Services National Board of Medical Examiners 3750 Market Street Philadelphia, PA (215)

67 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Quality Assurance Steps for the Ultimate in Scoring and Score Reporting Preventing Problems: Data capture –Answer sheets scanned correctly –Electronic responses read and unscrambled correctly –Data entry verified Key validation –Item analysis –Review by content experts

68 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Preventing Problems: Raw scoring –Correct key was applied –Scores were calculated in two independent systems

69 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Preventing Problems: Equating –Appropriate equating link –Equating item text and/or pictures did not change –Equating based on correct group –Equating procedure done correctly –Equating produces reasonable results

70 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Preventing Problems: Scaling/Norming –Scaling based on correct group –Correct scaling constants applied –Results of scaling look reasonable and make sense –Norms based on appropriate group –Norms look reasonable and make sense

71 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Preventing Problems: Standard Setting –Standard setting based on defensible procedure –Appropriate exam material used –Appropriate panelists are selected for standard setting study –Panelists are trained appropriately

72 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Standard Setting (Continued) –Standard setting data are entered and verified –Standard setting data are analyzed correctly –Appropriate decision making group selects standard –Standard is applied correctly

73 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Preventing Problems: Score Reporting –Examinee biographic information is correct –Scores are correct and belong to examinee –Examination name, date, year, etc. are correct

74 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Score Reporting (Continued) –Content area titles are correct –Interpretive text is accurate and clear –Materials are packed carefully –Materials are shipped via a reliable and traceable method

75 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Mitigating Problems: Have QC checks in place at key points in the scoring process to catch errors if they occur Establish a culture where staff feel comfortable coming forward if they identify a problem Be transparent with stakeholders if a scoring issue is discovered after scores have been released

76 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #1 During the key validation process for the Player Certification Exam, content experts decide that seven items should be deleted from scoring and two items should be re- keyed. During processing, the correct items are deleted from scoring. However, one of the items that was supposed to be re-keyed to A was re-keyed to B instead, which was also incorrect.

77 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #1 (Continued) Processing proceeds and scores are released to the players. During an item review meeting the following month, the Player Certification Exam Committee reviews the item and says that the key should be A. The committee chair remembers that this item was reviewed during the key validation process and was supposed to be changed to A. The committee is visibly upset and wants to know how this could have happened.

78 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Scoring Practices to Promote Success Have a quality control process that includes a check that the correct items are deleted and the correct keys are in place for re-keyed items Review item analysis again following key validation

79 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #2 Scores from the 2007 Observer Certification Exam are equated to the 2006 form using a representative set of items that appear on both forms. An error is made during the equating process that results in scores for the 2007 candidates that are approximately.25 standard deviation units higher than they should be.

80 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #2 (Continued) The error is not detected during processing. When the Observer Exam Committee is reviewing summary data and passing rates prior to the release of scores, they express concern that the passing rate is considerably higher this year than in the past. They ask that you review the increase in performance further before scores are released.

81 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Scoring Practices to Promote Success Have a quality control step in place to review the equating process to make sure it was done correctly Compare current candidate performance to prior performance (mean scores, passing rates) to see if it is similar Compare current performance to previous performance using other methods

82 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #3 A content-based standard setting exercise (modified Angoff procedure) is conducted for the Observer Certification Exam. The panel of judges consists of ten players, four team owners, and one observer. Participants discuss the minimally proficient observer for five minutes and then work on their own to provide ratings for a sample of 15 items from the Observer Certification Exam.

83 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #3 (Continued) The standard setting data are entered, verified, and summarized in a report that is sent to the Observer Exam Committee. The recommended standard from the study is much higher than the current standard and would result in a fail rate of 90% for the observers who took the current exam.

84 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #3 (Continued) The Observer Exam Committee expresses concern about the results of the exercise and the process that was used to set the standard. You agree to conduct another study for no additional charge to correct the shortcomings of the current study.

85 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Scoring Practices to Promote Success Panelists are selected to be representative of the field Stakeholders approve the panelists who will participate before the study Panelists are given extensive training to ensure that they understand the task An appropriate sample of items is selected for review (N, content representative)

86 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #4 Score reports are given online for the Rules of the Game Self Assessment. When programming the score report template, the wrong variable name was inserted for the total test score field. As a result, the percent correct score for the Penalties content category was reported in the total test field instead of the total test percent correct score.

87 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Hypothetical Case #4 (Continued) The error was discovered when an examinee called and asked how he could have gotten a 100% on the total test when he didnt get 100% on all of the content areas.

88 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Scoring Practices to Promote Success Have a quality control step in place to check online score reports for accuracy before allowing immediate score reporting –Verify that scores were calculated correctly –Verify that scores appear in correct fields

89 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Using Experience to Inform Future Activities Have routine quality control checks built into processing Document procedures as well as exam- specific information Develop staff so they can spot things that look unusual

90 Atlanta, Georgia 2007 Annual Conference Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation Speaker Contact Information Carol A. Morrison, PhD Associate Vice President, Scoring Services National Board of Medical Examiners 3750 Market Street Philadelphia, PA (215)


Download ppt "2007 Annual Conference Quality Assurance and Regulatory Excellence Carol Morrison, Elizabeth Azari National Board of Medical Examiners Lynn Webb Testing."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google