Premium
Initial Validity Analysis of the American Board of Emergency Medicine Enhanced Oral Examination
Author(s) -
Kowalenko Terry,
Heller Barry N.,
Strauss Robert W.,
Counselman Francis L.,
Mallory Mary Nan S.,
Joldersma Kevin B.,
Coombs Andrea B.,
Harvey Anne L.,
Reisdorff Earl J.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1111/acem.13068
Subject(s) - medicine , oral examination , family medicine , clinical practice , construct validity , certification , content validity , clinical psychology , psychometrics , oral health , political science , law
Objectives The American Board of Emergency Medicine ( ABEM ) has introduced a new testing format for the oral certification examination ( OCE ): the enhanced oral or “ eO ral” format. The purpose of this study was to perform initial validity analyses of the eO ral format. The two hypotheses were: 1) the case content in the eO ral format was sufficiently similar to clinical practice and 2) the eO ral case materials were sufficiently similar to clinical practice. The eO ral and traditional formats were compared for these characteristics. Methods This was a prospective survey study. The survey was administered as a voluntary postexamination activity at the end of the 2015 spring (April 25–27) and fall (October 10–13) ABEM OCE s. The survey is a routine part of the ABEM oral examination experience. For 2015, two additional questions were added to gauge the similarity of the eO ral format to clinical practice. Validity was defined by content and substantive elements within Messick's model of construct validity as well as portions of Kane's validity model. Results Of the 1,746 physicians who took the oral examination, 1,380 physicians (79.0%) completed all or part of the study survey questions. The majority of respondents agreed the patient presentations in the cases were similar (strongly agreed or agreed) to cases seen in clinical practice, in both the traditional cases (95.1%) and the eO ral cases (90.1%). Likewise, the majority of respondents answered that the case materials (e.g., laboratory, radiographs) were similar (strongly agreed or agreed) to what they encounter in clinical practice, both in the traditional format (85.8%) and in the eO ral cases (93.7%). Conclusions Most emergency physicians reported that the types of cases tested in the traditional and eO ral formats were similar to cases encountered in clinical practice. In addition, most physicians found the case materials to be similar to what is seen in clinical practice. This study provides early validity evidence for the eO ral format.