A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance

Despite the growing popularity of paired format speaking assessments, the effects of pre-task planning time on performance in these formats are not yet well understood. For example, some studies have revealed the benefits of planning but others have not. Using a multifaceted approach including analysis of the process of speaking performance, the aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of pre-task planning in a paired format. Data were collected from 32 students who carried out two decision-making tasks in pairs, under planned and unplanned conditions. The study used analyses of rating scores, discourse analytic measures, and conversation analysis (CA) of test-taker discourse to gain insight into co-constructing processes. A post-test questionnaire was also administered to understand the participants’ perceptions toward planned and unplanned interactions. The results from rating scores and discourse analytic measures revealed that planning had limited effect on performance, and analysis of the questionnaires did not indicate clear differences between the two conditions. CA, however, identified the possibility of a contrastive mode of discourse under the two planning conditions, raising concerns that planning might actually deprive test-takers of the chance to demonstrate their abilities to interact collaboratively

Investigating possible ethnicity and sex bias in clinical examiners: an analysis of data from the MRCP(UK) PACES and nPACES examinations

Bias of clinical examiners against some types of candidate, based on characteristics such as sex or ethnicity, would represent a threat to the validity of an examination, since sex or ethnicity are 'construct-irrelevant' characteristics. In this paper we report a novel method for assessing sex and ethnic bias in over 2000 examiners who had taken part in the PACES and nPACES (new PACES) examinations of the MRCP(UK)

Constructing and evaluating a validity argument for the final-year ward simulation exercise.

The authors report final-year ward simulation data from the University of Dundee Medical School. Faculty who designed this assessment intend for the final score to represent an individual senior medical student's level of clinical performance. The results are included in each student's portfolio as one source of evidence of the student's capability as a practitioner, professional, and scholar. Our purpose in conducting this study was to illustrate how assessment designers who are creating assessments to evaluate clinical performance might develop propositions and then collect and examine various sources of evidence to construct and evaluate a validity argument. The data were from all 154 medical students who were in their final year of study at the University of Dundee Medical School in the 2010-2011 academic year. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on an analysis of senior medical students' clinical performance while they were taking responsibility for the management of a simulated ward. Using multi-facet Rasch measurement and a generalizability theory approach, we examined various sources of validity evidence that the medical school faculty have gathered for a set of six propositions needed to support their use of scores as measures of students' clinical ability. Based on our analysis of the evidence, we would conclude that, by and large, the propositions appear to be sound, and the evidence seems to support their proposed score interpretation. Given the body of evidence collected thus far, their intended interpretation seems defensible