Literature DB >> 10607273

Variations among examiners in family medicine residency board oral examinations.

M A Weingarten1, M R Polliack, H Tabenkin, E Kahan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to describe the variation in marking tendencies among different examiners in an oral examination.
DESIGN: Marks awarded in a family practice board examination between 1984 and 1996 were analysed, relating to 5328 examination sessions graded by 94 examiners. Examiners were ranked by the rates at which they awarded 'fail', 'pass' or 'distinction' grades. The effects of examiners' gender, experience, academic rank, regional affiliation and country of qualification on examiner behaviour were studied.
SETTING: National Family Medicine Examination Board, Scientific Council, Israel Medical Association.
SUBJECTS: Oral examiners.
RESULTS: Eighteen per cent of examiners were classified as 'tough', being in the lowest tertile for 'distinction' rates and the highest tertile for 'failure' rates; 19% were classified as 'mild'; 52% were 'regular', falling in the middle tertile for both distinction and failure rates. Four per cent of examiners were in the top tertile for both distinctions and failures, labelled 'extremists', and 6% were in the bottom tertile for both, and were labelled 'noncommittal'. Higher failure rates were associated with examiners' academic rank, experience and graduation from an English-speaking medical school.
CONCLUSIONS: Examiners differ significantly in their degree of severity. Those who demonstrate clearly deviant patterns of grading should be withdrawn. Candidates should be presented with a balanced panel of examiners, and a degree of standardization of content should be introduced into oral examinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10607273     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00408.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  7 in total

1.  A Case for Caution: Chart-Stimulated Recall.

Authors:  Shalini T Reddy; Justin Endo; Shanu Gupta; Ara Tekian; Yoon Soo Park
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-12

Review 2.  How should paediatric examiners be trained?

Authors:  N Khera; H Davies; H Davies; T Lissauer; D Skuse; R Wakeford; J Stroobant
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.791

3.  What is being assessed in the MRCGP oral examination? A qualitative study.

Authors:  Robin G Simpson; Karen D Ballard
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Prevalence of the insulin resistance syndrome in obesity.

Authors:  R M Viner; T Y Segal; E Lichtarowicz-Krynska; P Hindmarsh
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.791

5.  Impact of a diabetes certificate program on PharmD students' knowledge and skills.

Authors:  Gina J Ryan; Karla T Foster; Whitney Unterwagner; Haomiao Jia
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  "On the same page"? The effect of GP examiner feedback on differences in rating severity in clinical assessments: a pre/post intervention study.

Authors:  Nancy Sturman; Remo Ostini; Wai Yee Wong; Jianzhen Zhang; Michael David
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  Tutor assessment of PBL process: does tutor variability affect objectivity and reliability?

Authors:  Bidyadhar Sa; Chidum Ezenwaka; Keerti Singh; Sehlule Vuma; Md Anwarul Azim Majumder
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 2.463

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.