Investigating possible causes of bias in a progress test translation: an one-edged sword.

PURPOSE: Assessment in different languages should measure the same construct. However, item characteristics, such as item flaws and content, may favor one test-taker group over another. This is known as item bias. Although some studies have focused on item bias, little is known about item bias and its association with items characteristics. Therefore, this study investigated the association between item characteristics and bias. METHODS: The University of Groningen offers both an international and a national bachelor's program in medicine. Students in both programs take the same progress test, but the international progress test is literally translated into English from the Dutch version. Differential item functioning was calculated to analyze item bias in four subsequent progress tests. Items were also classified by their categories, number of alternatives, item flaw, item length, and whether it was a case-based question. RESULTS: The proportion of items with bias ranged from 34% to 36% for the various tests. The number of items and the size of their bias was very similar in both programmes. We have identified that the more complex items with more alternatives favored the national students, whereas shorter items and fewer alternatives favored the international students. CONCLUSION: Although nearly 35% of all items contain bias, the distribution and the size of the bias were similar for both groups. The findings of this paper may be used to improve the writing process of the items, by avoiding some characteristics that may benefit one group whilst being a disadvantage for others.

Validation of a new study skills scale to provide an explanation for depressive symptoms among medical students.

BACKGROUND: Medical students are faced with enormous academic demands that may influence their emotional wellbeing. The high rate of depression among medical students and its negative impact is an impetus to find explanation for the factors associated with it. Study skills that students possess might be such a factor. The current tools for the assessment of the study skills may have certain limitations, particularly for different cultural settings. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and validate a Study Skills Inventory (SSI), and to investigate the relationship between the students' study skills and the extent (severity) of depressive symptoms, measured using the validated tool. METHOD: The first version of the SSI was developed through expert consensus. The inventory was then administered to a randomly selected group of medical students. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for the internal validity. External validation was conducted by comparing the results of the SSI with the "Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students" (ASSIST). After validation, the correlation between the SSI total score with the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) total score was investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The means of the total study skills scores for each severity category of depression were compared using ANOVA. RESULTS: A total of 23 items, representing five sub-scales, were included in the inventory. Based on 372 student responses (response rate of 93%), the five-factor solution explained a cumulative variance of 52% and Cronach alpha was 0.84. The SSI total score had a significant negative association with the BDI-II depression score (Pearson correlation of -.348** and P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study showed evidence for acceptable reliability and validity of the newly developed SSI. Poor study skills were found to correlate with higher depressive symptoms. This association needs confirmation in future research and could open a new door for better understanding of student depression.

Prioritization of future genetics education for general practitioners: a Delphi study.

PURPOSE: General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly expected to deliver genetics services in daily patient care. Education in primary care genetics is considered suboptimal and in urgent need of revision and innovation. The aim of this study was to prioritize topics for genetics education for general practice. METHODS: A Delphi consensus procedure consisting of three rounds was conducted. A purposively selected heterogeneous panel (n = 18) of experts, comprising six practicing GPs who were also engaged in research, five GP trainers, four clinical genetics professionals, and three representatives of patient organizations, participated. Educational needs regarding genetics in general practice in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes were rated and ranked in a top-10 list. RESULTS: The entire panel completed all three rounds. Kendall's coefficient of concordance indicated significant agreement regarding the top 10 genetic education needs (P < 0.001). "Recognizing signals that are potentially indicative of a hereditary component of a disease" was rated highest, followed by "Evaluating indications for referral to a clinical genetics centre" and "Knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of genetic tests." CONCLUSIONS: The priorities resulting from this study can inform the development of educational modules, including input for case-based education, to improve GP performance in genetic patient care.