Premium
Should There Be A Part II ABPMR Examination?: A Psychometric Inquiry
Author(s) -
Chiodo Anthony,
Raddatz Mikaela,
Driscoll Sherilyn W.,
Sliwa James A.,
Clark Gary S.,
Robinson Lawrence R.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
pmandr
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.617
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1934-1563
pISSN - 1934-1482
DOI - 10.1002/pmrj.12126
Subject(s) - concordance , medicine , physical examination , certification , objective structured clinical examination , oral examination , variance (accounting) , empirical examination , clinical psychology , physical therapy , family medicine , medical education , surgery , oral health , accounting , classical economics , political science , economics , law , business
Background Certification by the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) requires passing both a written multiple choice examination (Part I) and an oral examination (Part II), but it has been unclear whether the two examinations measure the same or different dimensions of knowledge. Objective To evaluate the concordance between the Part I and Part II examinations for ABPMR initial certification with regard to candidate performance on the examinations and their subsets. Our question is whether the Part II examination provides additional assessment of a candidate beyond what Part I provides. Design Retrospective psychometric evaluation of deidentified board examination scores. Setting ABPMR database of Part I and Part II examination scores. Participants Candidates for the ABPMR Part I and Part II examinations after 2005, with a more detailed analysis of candidates for the Part I examination from 2014 to 2016. Examination scores of candidates who took the Part II examination both before and after the examination was standardized in 2005 were also used for an additional analysis. Methods Correlations, simple linear regressions, and principal components analysis. Main Outcome Measurements Correlation coefficients, variance analysis, and unexplained variance in the principal components analysis. Results There is a weak to moderate correlation between performance on the Part I and Part II examinations: r = 0.33, P < .001. There is an additional dimension of assessment that is demonstrated on the Part II examination, with this being primarily in the domains of systems‐based practice and interpersonal communication skills. Conclusion The Part I and Part II examinations, although with some overlap, contribute different and meaningful components to the overall evaluation of candidates for board certification in PM&R. Level of Evidence III.