Analysis on Validity and Academic Competency of Mock Test for Korean Medicine National Licensing Examination Using Item Response Theory
Open accessAbstract
The national licensing examination is used to evaluate the medical competency at the time of graduation, however no study has been performed on the validity of traditional Korean medicine license examination yet. The purpose of this study was to develop learning analytics using item response theory (IRT) to examine the validity and academic competency of the mock test of the national licensing exam. Classical test theory and IRT were used to evaluate the validity of test items, and IRT was used for test validity and competency analysis. The correlation between competency score of 12 subjects was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation. The distribution of students’ latent competencies was examined by gender and administrative group using a Kernel density map, Latent Profile Analysis, and χ 2. The guessing parameter of 340 items was relatively high, and the information level of 12 subjects were relatively low. Significant correlations (r = 0.49–0.83, p < 0.05) were observed between the competency scores of total and 12 subjects. Two (high and low) latent academic competency groups were identified based on the competency score of 12 subjects. The low academic competency group requiring intensive management has a significantly higher frequency of male students with the experience of academic fail in the seven-year course. This study presented the quantitative learning analytics for the national licensing exam of traditional Korean medicine. The multifaceted item and test validities of the mock license test were provided, and an evidence-based approach to competency-based student management and national licensing exam of traditional Korean medicine was suggested.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19
- Authors
- Chae, H., Cho, E., Kim, S., Choi, D., & Lee, S.
- Affiliations
- Hamsoa Pharmaceutical (South Korea) (KR)
- Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine (KR)
- Dong-Eui University (KR)
- Pusan National University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Chae, Han
- Venue
- Keimyung Medical Journal
- Published
- 2023-06-15
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-18
- ISSN
- 2092-8335 (ISSN-L)
- 2733-5380
- OpenAlex
- W4379058336
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Gyemyeong uidae haksulji (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Pusan National University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Keywords
- traditional Korean medicine, national licensing examination, mock exam, test validity, academic competence, item response theory, guessing parameter, learning analytics, seven-year medical program, gender differences
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review