Were Egyptian monarchs referred to by the title "pharaoh" alone, without using their proper names, from around 1500 BCE until the 10th century BCE?

This is at least partly correct.

Egyptian titulaturs for pharaoh and Egyptian royal titulary changed significantly over time and between dynasties.

What is remarkable in this context is that 'pharaoh' only became used to represent 'king' in the middle of the second millennium BCE. In inscriptions it was often only to be read as 'Horus did this and that', not giving any clue to an actual name. At the same time a superstitious belief manifested itself to not pronounce a holy name. (Cf — Herodotus, Histories II,61; II,170) This tradition of not speaking out loud the name of any pharaoh is well attested for at least beginning in the Middle Kingdom period. (— Hans-Werner Fischer-Elfert: "Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn. Eine Etappe auf dem Gottesweg des loyalen und solidarischen Beamten des Mittleren Reiches", Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, vol 60, Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1999.)
Only around 1000 BCE it became common to combine the title Pharaoh with a given name.

The entry from New Pauly reads:

Pharaoh —— Greek rendering (φαραω/pharao) known from the Old Testament (Hebrew Gn 12:15 and passim) of the ancient Egyptian term for an Egyptian ruler. In Egypt, the term referred originally to the royal palace or court and literally means 'great house'. From Thutmosis III (1479–1426 BC) at the latest, this expression also designated the person of the Egyptian ruler. As a title before the name of the ruler, it is encountered from the 10th cent. BC onwards.

— Kahl, Jochem (Münster), “Pharaoh”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and, Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. doi First published online: 2006

As described here:

Prohibition of naming the king (pharaoh).
Particularly striking is the prohibition to mention the name (ancient Egyptian ren) of deities. Such taboos are only secondary and partially studied in Egyptology for ancient Egyptian religion. Herodotus reported the prohibition of publicly pronouncing the name of Osiris in certain contexts. The negative confession of Ramses VI, who boasted of not having pronounced the name of Tatenen, belongs in this subject area.
The rite of not mentioning the name of the king, but only writing it down and reading it, is attested more often; for example, extensively in the Middle Kingdom in the "Teaching of a Man for His Son" and in sources that address "right conduct toward the king." Reasons for this taboo are probably to be seen in the reverence and fear of the respective deity, since public utterance was associated with the reception of negative magical powers. In the case of the prohibition of pronouncing the name of the king, the main motive might be the fear of magical consequences, to which a possible defamation by imprudence could add. In this context is the further taboo environment to mention the "hidden and secret names of certain gods".

Why "partially correct"?

The biblical account seems to use the word anachronistically. Not for the time after 1000, but before, for example during the time the Moses story is set:

The Year 17 inscription is an important palaeographical development because it is the first time in Egyptian recorded history that the word pharaoh was employed as a title and linked directly to a king's royal name: as in Pharaoh Siamun here. Henceforth, references to Pharaoh Psusennes II (Siamun's successor), Pharaoh Shoshenq I, Pharaoh Osorkon I, and so forth become commonplace. Prior to Siamun's reign and all throughout the Middle and New Kingdom, the word pharaoh referred only to the office of the king.

— WP: Siamun 986–967 BC (21st Dynasty)

Juxtaposing biblical tradition with developments in Egyptian history:

Another factor that might account for the absence of Pharaoh's name in the exodus narratives is that it was normal in New Kingdom inscriptions not to disclose the name of Pharaoh's enemies. Several examples of this practice will suffice to illustrate this point. Thutmose Ill's campaign against the rebellious coalition at Megiddo was fomented by the king of Kadesh (on the Orontes) — who is named "that wretched enemy of Kadesh" (hrw pf hs n kdsw) or simply "that •wretched enemy" in the Annals of Thutmose III and in the Gebel Barkal stela.Even when reviewing the booty taken from this battle, the scribes do not name the king whose possessions the Egyptians captured: "the fine chariot made of gold belonging to the prince (wr) of [Megiddo]," "the fine mail armor of that enemy (i.e., the king of Kadesh)" and "the fine mail armor of the prince of Megiddo".

Giving the fitting description, albeit with a little too far-reaching conclusions:

Historians have long lamented that the writer of the Joseph narratives (and those of Exodus, too) did not furnish the reader with the name of the Egyptian king. Throughout Genesis and Exodus, the well-known title "Pharaoh," derived from pr '3, literally "great house," is used.

As a reference to the palace, this expression goes back into the Old Kingdom, but as an epithet for the monarch, it does not occur until the Eighteenth Dynasty,sometime before the reign of Thutmose III (1479–1425 B.C.).

By the Ramesside period (1300–1100 B.C.), "Pharaoh" is widely used and continued to be popular in the late period. From its inception until the tenth century, the term "Pharaoh" stood alone, without juxtaposed personal name.

In subsequent periods, the name of the monarch was generally added on. This precise practice is found in the Old Testament; in the period covered from Genesis and Exodus to Solomon and Rehoboam, the term "pharaoh" occurs alone, while after Shishak (ca. 925 B.C.), the title and name appear together (e.g., Pharaoh Necho, Pharaoh Hophra).

Thus, the usage of "pharaoh" in Genesis and Exodus does accord well with the Egyptian practice from the fifteenth through the tenth centuries. The appearance of 'pharaoh" in the Joseph story could reflect the New Kingdom setting of the story, or, if its provenance is earlier (i.e., the late Middle Kingdom through Second Intermediate Period), its occurrence in Genesis is suggestive of the period of composition.

— James K. Hoffmeier: "Israel In Egypt. The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition", Oxford University Press: London, New York, 1996.

In conclusion it seems evident that the 'patriarchal usage' of 'pharaoh' is a very distorted one, adapted to contemporary understanding at the time — just like we ourselves often tend to call all rulers of Egypt 'pharaoh'. In the case of the Exodus narrative however, it is quite diligent to not over-interpret the parallels that seem apparent between Biblical usage and Egyptian usage. It is not the only interpretation to infer that 'therefore, the texts were indeed originally written/composed [then/as eye-witness account etc…]'.
Instead we should really stick to the description Berman used himself: "This, too, echos usage in Egypt itself,…"

Further insights into this obviously interconnected but often disjunctively discussed matter: — Thomas E. Levy & Thomas Schneider & William H.C. Propp: "Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience", Springer: Cham, Heidelberg, 2015.