IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0309887.html

Item response theory model highlighting rating scale of a rubric and rater–rubric interaction in objective structured clinical examination

Author

Listed:
  • Masaki Uto
  • Jun Tsuruta
  • Kouji Araki
  • Maomi Ueno

Abstract

Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are a widely used performance assessment for medical and dental students. A common limitation of OSCEs is that the evaluation results depend on the characteristics of raters and a scoring rubric. To overcome this limitation, item response theory (IRT) models such as the many-facet Rasch model have been proposed to estimate examinee abilities while taking into account the characteristics of raters and evaluation items in a rubric. However, conventional IRT models have two impractical assumptions: constant rater severity across all evaluation items in a rubric and an equal interval rating scale among evaluation items, which can decrease model fitting and ability measurement accuracy. To resolve this problem, we propose a new IRT model that introduces two parameters: (1) a rater–item interaction parameter representing the rater severity for each evaluation item and (2) an item-specific step-difficulty parameter representing the difference in rating scales among evaluation items. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model by applying it to actual data collected from a medical interview test conducted at Tokyo Medical and Dental University as part of a post-clinical clerkship OSCE. The experimental results showed that the proposed model was well-fitted to our OSCE data and measured ability accurately. Furthermore, it provided abundant information on rater and item characteristics that conventional models cannot, helping us to better understand rater and item properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Masaki Uto & Jun Tsuruta & Kouji Araki & Maomi Ueno, 2024. "Item response theory model highlighting rating scale of a rubric and rater–rubric interaction in objective structured clinical examination," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309887
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309887
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309887&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0309887?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309887. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.