Case SM, Swanson DB, Becker DF. Verbosity, window dressing, and red herrings: do they make a better test item? Acad Med. 1996;71(10):s28–30.

Article  Google Scholar 

Surry LT, Torre D, Durning SJ. Exploring examinee behaviours as validity evidence for multiple-choice question examinations. Med Educ. 2017;51(10):1075–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13367.

Article  Google Scholar 

Abedi J. Language issues in item development. In: S Lane, MR Raymond, TM Haladyna, editors. Handbook of test development, second edition: New York: Routledge; 2015. pp. 355–73.

National Board of Medical Examiners. NBME item-writing guide, constructing written test questions for the health sciences. 6th ed. Philadelphia: National Board of Medical Examiners; 2020.

Google Scholar 

Abedi J, Lord C. The language factor in mathematics tests. Appl Meas Educ. 2001;14(3):219–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2.

Article  Google Scholar 

Raymond MR, Ling Y, Grabovsky I. Investigating the performance of second language medical students on lengthy clinical vignettes. Eval Health Prof. 2017;40(2):151–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278716672283.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bridgeman B, Cline F, Hessinger J. Effect of extra time on verbal and quantitative GRE scores. Appl Meas Educ. 2004;17:25–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1701_2.

Article  Google Scholar 

Harik P, Clauser BE, Grabovsky I, et al. A comparison of experimental and observational approaches to assessing the effects of time constraints in a medical licensing examination. J Educ Meas. 2018;55(2):308–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12177.

Article  Google Scholar 

Hess BJ, Lipner RS, Thompson V, Holmboe ES, Graber ML. Blink or think: can further reflection improve initial diagnostic impressions? Acad Med. 2015;90:112–8.

Article  Google Scholar 

National Board of Medical Examiners. Step 2 CK test question formats. 2024. USMLE.org/prepare-your-exam/step-2-ck-materials/step-2-ck-test-question-formats. Accessed 11 June 2024.

Weed L. Medical records that guide and teach. N Engl J Med. 1968;278(11):593–600.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pearce PF, Ferguson LA, George GS, Langford CA. The essential SOAP note in an EHR age. The Nurse Pract. 2016;41(2):29–36.

Article  Google Scholar 

Miller TW, Lindquist K. Individual exam analysis using Examsoft snapshot data. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:S63.

Google Scholar 

Asparouhov, T, Muthem BO. Multivariate statistical modeling with survey data. In Proceedings of the federal committee on statistical methodology (FCSM) research conference, 2005. http://www.fcsm.gov/events/papers05.html

Beauducel A, Herzberg PY. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct. Equ. Model.: A Multidiscip. J. 2006;13(2):186–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2

Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315.

Article  Google Scholar 

Yuan K-H, Bentler PM. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociol Methodol. 2000;30:165–200.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cecilio-Fernandes D, Kerdijk W, Jaarsma ADC, Tio RA. Development of cognitive processing and judgments of knowledge in medical students: analysis of progress test results. Med Teach. 2016;38(11):1125–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1170781.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cecilio-Fernandes D, Kerdijk W, Bremers AJ, Aalders W, Tio RA. Comparison of the level of cognitive processing between case-based items and non-case-based items on the interuniversity progress test of medicine in the Netherlands. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2018;15:28. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.28.

Article  Google Scholar 

Specian Junior FC, Santos TM, Sandars J, Amaral EM, Cecilio-Fernandes D. Identifying the response process validity of clinical vignette-type multiple choice questions: an eye-tracking study. Med Teach. 2023;45(8):845–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2182662.

Article  Google Scholar 

Yaneva V, Jurich D, Ha LA, Baldwin P. Using linguistic features to predict the response process complexity associated with answering clinical MCQs. Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 2021;223–32.

Clinton V, Taylor T, Bajpayee S, Davison ML, Carlson SE, Seipel B. Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Read Writ. 2020;33:2223–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2.

Article  Google Scholar 

Graesser AC, McNamara DS, Louwerse MM, Cai Z. Coh-metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav. Res. Methods, Instrum. & Comput. 2004;36:193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564

Assessing the validity of test scores using response process data from an eye-tracking study: a new approach. Yaneva V, Clauser BE, Morales A, Paniagua M. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 2022;27:1401–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10107-9

Shankar S, St-Onge C, Young ME. When I say…response process validity evidence. Med Educ. 2022;56(9):878–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14853.

Article  Google Scholar