PURPOSE: To assess the validity of the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) examination by addressing the degree to which experts view item content as clinically relevant and appropriate for Step 2 CK. METHOD: Twenty-seven experts were asked to complete three survey questions related to the clinical relevance and appropriateness of 150 Step 2 CK multiple-choice questions. Percentages, reliability estimates, and correlation coefficients were calculated and ordinary least squares regression was used. RESULTS: Results showed that 92% of expert judgments indicated the item content was clinically relevant, 90% indicated the content was appropriate for Step 2 CK, and 85% indicated the content was used in clinical practice. The regression indicated that more difficult items and more frequently used items are considered more appropriate for Step 2 CK. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the majority of item content is clinically relevant and appropriate, thus providing validation support for Step 2 CK.
PURPOSE: To assess the validity of the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) examination by addressing the degree to which experts view item content as clinically relevant and appropriate for Step 2 CK. METHOD: Twenty-seven experts were asked to complete three survey questions related to the clinical relevance and appropriateness of 150 Step 2 CK multiple-choice questions. Percentages, reliability estimates, and correlation coefficients were calculated and ordinary least squares regression was used. RESULTS: Results showed that 92% of expert judgments indicated the item content was clinically relevant, 90% indicated the content was appropriate for Step 2 CK, and 85% indicated the content was used in clinical practice. The regression indicated that more difficult items and more frequently used items are considered more appropriate for Step 2 CK. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the majority of item content is clinically relevant and appropriate, thus providing validation support for Step 2 CK.
Authors: Stanley J Hamstra; Monica M Cuddy; Daniel Jurich; Kenji Yamazaki; John Burkhardt; Eric S Holmboe; Michael A Barone; Sally A Santen Journal: Acad Med Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 7.840
Authors: Jeffrey H Silber; Patrick S Romano; Kamal M F Itani; Amy K Rosen; Dylan Small; Rebecca S Lipner; Charles L Bosk; Yanli Wang; Michael J Halenar; Sophia Korovaichuk; Orit Even-Shoshan; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.893