A Schubert1, J E Tetzlaff, M Tan, J V Ryckman, E Mascha. 1. Division of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio 44195, USA. schubea@cesmtp.ccf.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral practice examinations (OPEs) are used extensively in many anesthesiology programs for various reasons, including assessment of clinical judgment. Yet oral examinations have been criticized for their subjectivity. The authors studied the reliability, consistency, and validity of their OPE program to determine if it was a useful assessment tool. METHODS: From 1989 through 1993, we prospectively studied 441 OPEs given to 190 residents. The examination format closely approximated that used by the American Board of Anesthesiology. Pass-fail grade and an overall numerical score were the OPE results of interest. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were determined using agreement measures. To assess their validity in describing competence, OPE results were correlated with in-training examination results and faculty evaluations. Furthermore, we analyzed the relationship of OPE with implicit indicators of resident preparation such as length of training. RESULTS: The internal consistency coefficient for the overall numerical score was 0.82, indicating good correlation among component scores. The interexaminer agreement was 0.68, indicating moderate or good agreement beyond that expected by chance. The actual agreement among examiners on pass-fail was 84%. Correlation of overall numerical score with in-training examination scores and faculty evaluations was moderate (r = 0.47 and 0.41, respectively; P < 0.01). OPE results were significantly (P < 0.01) associated with training duration, previous OPE experience, trainee preparedness, and trainee anxiety. CONCLUSION: Our results show the substantial internal consistency and reliability of OPE results at a single institution. The positive correlation of OPE scores with in-training examination scores, faculty evaluations, and other indicators of preparation suggest that OPEs are a reasonably valid tool for assessment of resident performance.
BACKGROUND: Oral practice examinations (OPEs) are used extensively in many anesthesiology programs for various reasons, including assessment of clinical judgment. Yet oral examinations have been criticized for their subjectivity. The authors studied the reliability, consistency, and validity of their OPE program to determine if it was a useful assessment tool. METHODS: From 1989 through 1993, we prospectively studied 441 OPEs given to 190 residents. The examination format closely approximated that used by the American Board of Anesthesiology. Pass-fail grade and an overall numerical score were the OPE results of interest. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were determined using agreement measures. To assess their validity in describing competence, OPE results were correlated with in-training examination results and faculty evaluations. Furthermore, we analyzed the relationship of OPE with implicit indicators of resident preparation such as length of training. RESULTS: The internal consistency coefficient for the overall numerical score was 0.82, indicating good correlation among component scores. The interexaminer agreement was 0.68, indicating moderate or good agreement beyond that expected by chance. The actual agreement among examiners on pass-fail was 84%. Correlation of overall numerical score with in-training examination scores and faculty evaluations was moderate (r = 0.47 and 0.41, respectively; P < 0.01). OPE results were significantly (P < 0.01) associated with training duration, previous OPE experience, trainee preparedness, and trainee anxiety. CONCLUSION: Our results show the substantial internal consistency and reliability of OPE results at a single institution. The positive correlation of OPE scores with in-training examination scores, faculty evaluations, and other indicators of preparation suggest that OPEs are a reasonably valid tool for assessment of resident performance.
Authors: Lenny Lopez; Ana-Maria Vranceanu; Amy P Cohen; Joseph Betancourt; Joel S Weissman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elyse R Park; Maria B J Chun; Joseph R Betancourt; Alexander R Green; Joel S Weissman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-06-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Douglas B Luckie; Aaron M Rivkin; Jacob R Aubry; Benjamin J Marengo; Leah R Creech; Ryan D Sweeder Journal: CBE Life Sci Educ Date: 2013 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Fabian Stroben; Therese Schröder; Katja A Dannenberg; Anke Thomas; Aristomenis Exadaktylos; Wolf E Hautz Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 2.463