To investigate if the misfit of Item 6 was contributing to the overall item misfit to the model, Item 6 was removed from each sample and Rasch analysis repeated. The residual mean value for overall item fit changed from −0.33 (SD 1.71) to −0.33 (SD 1.53) in Sample 1 and from −0.33 (SD 1.73) to −0.32 (SD
1.51) in Sample 2. The reduction in score variability indicated a small improvement in the overall fit of items to the model. Threshold order: There were no disordered thresholds for any of the 20 items in either Sample 1 or 2. The threshold map for Sample 1 is illustrated in Figure 2. Targeting: The average person location in both CHIR-99021 in vivo samples was close to zero (−0.06) indicating that overall the item difficulty was well targeted to the students’ abilities. The person-item threshold graph ( Figure 3) presents the distribution of the students (top half of the graph) and item thresholds (bottom
half of the graph) on a logit scale for Sample 1. This graph shows that a majority of item thresholds correspond to the main cluster of persons (students). Logits of increasing negative value indicate less difficult items and less able students. buy Capmatinib Logits of increasing positive value indicate more difficult items and more able students. There appears to be an even spread of item thresholds across the full range of student abilities, suggesting effective targeting of APP items. Similar results were seen for the first field test. At the far right end of the X-axis, there are a few person abilities that have no equivalent item threshold difficulties that could differentiate their performance. These represent high performing students. The number of students who are performing at a level too low to be captured by the scale is negligible. unless Hierarchy of item difficulty: The sequence or hierarchy of average difficulty of the 20 items on the APP for both samples is presented in Table 4. In both samples, items representing professional behaviour and communication were amongst the least difficult items whereas the most difficult items related to analysis and planning,
progressing intervention, and applying evidence-based practice. Person separation index: The person separation index was 0.95 for Sample 1 and 0.96 for Sample 2, indicating that the APP is able to discriminate at least four levels of performance. Differential item functioning: The presence of item bias was explored by analysis of differential item functioning with a Bonferroni-adjusted p value of 0.0025. No significantdifferential item functioning was demonstrated in either of the two samples for the following variables: the student’s age, gender, or amount of prior clinical experience, the educator’s age, gender, or experience as an educator, or the type of facility, university, or clinical area. This indicates the APP item ratings were not systematically affected by any of these nine variables.