{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029818956336528223, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006389776357827476, 'mean_word_length': 5.861313868613139, '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 pilot study of the relationship between experts' ratings and scores generated by the NBME's Computer‐Based Examination System

This pilot study evaluates the consistency of experts' ratings of students' performances on the National Board of Medical Examiners' Computer Based Examination (CBX) cases and the relationship of those ratings to the CBX's scoring algorithm. The authors were investigating whether an automated scoring algorithm can adequately assess an examinee's management of a computer-simulated patient. In 1989–90, at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, eight students, completing a surgery clerkship, each managed eight CBX cases and took a computer-administered, multiple-choice examination. Six clerkship coordinators rated the students' performances in terms of overall management, efficiency, and dangerous actions. The ratings correlated highly with scores produced by the CBX's scoring system.