{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015262110152621102, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.614035087719298, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A content validity analysis of neoplastic items of the National Board of Medical Examiners Part II Examination.

As part of its evaluation of the Clinical Cancer Education Program (CCEP) at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, the Office of Educational Research and Evaluation analyzed student performance on neoplastic items of the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Examination Part II. The evaluation provided a successful application of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) coding schema for analysis of neoplastic items. Two examinations were analyzed in order to determine the frequency with which specific disease sites, treatment modalities, and question emphasis items appeared. With reference to disease site, the greatest number of questions on both examinations dealt with gynecological issues while the fewest dealt with lung and hematologic-related disease. A breakdown of questions into various treatment modalities indicated that of items that could be categorized, most dealt with surgical treatment, while other therapeutic modalities were given little or no emphasis. Looking at question emphases, the most frequently asked questions referred to diagnostic tests and stratagems, whereas the least amount of emphasis was placed on rehabilitative and psychosocial aspects of the disease. These findings corroborate those reported by Ruckdeschel and his associates and point out several limitations to the content validity of the neoplastic items on NBME Part II.