OBJECTIVE: To determine the relevance of the initial certifying examination to the practice of internal medicine and the suitability of items used in initial certification for recertification. DESIGN: Using a matrix-sampling approach, items from the 1991 Certifying Examination were assigned to two sets of judges: directors of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and practicing general internists. Each judge rated the relevance of items on a five-point scale. PARTICIPANTS: 54 current or former directors of the ABIM and 72 practicing general internists; practitioners were nominated by directors and their ratings were included if they spent > 80% of their time in direct patient care. RESULTS: The directors' mean rating of all 576 items was 3.98 (SD = 0.62); the practitioners' mean rating was 4.11 (SD = 0.82). The directors assigned to 27 items ratings of less than 3 and the practitioners assigned to 42 items ratings of less than 3; seven of these items received low ratings from both groups. There were differences in the two groups' ratings of the relevance of various medical content categories, but the mean rating of core items was higher than that of noncore items and the mean rating of items testing clinical judgment was higher than that of items testing knowledge or synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the initial certifying examination is relevant to clinical practice and that many of the examination items are suitable for use in recertification. Differences in perception appear to exist between practitioners and directors, and the use of practitioner ratings is likely to be a routine part of judging the suitability of items for Board examinations in the future.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relevance of the initial certifying examination to the practice of internal medicine and the suitability of items used in initial certification for recertification. DESIGN: Using a matrix-sampling approach, items from the 1991 Certifying Examination were assigned to two sets of judges: directors of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and practicing general internists. Each judge rated the relevance of items on a five-point scale. PARTICIPANTS: 54 current or former directors of the ABIM and 72 practicing general internists; practitioners were nominated by directors and their ratings were included if they spent > 80% of their time in direct patient care. RESULTS: The directors' mean rating of all 576 items was 3.98 (SD = 0.62); the practitioners' mean rating was 4.11 (SD = 0.82). The directors assigned to 27 items ratings of less than 3 and the practitioners assigned to 42 items ratings of less than 3; seven of these items received low ratings from both groups. There were differences in the two groups' ratings of the relevance of various medical content categories, but the mean rating of core items was higher than that of noncore items and the mean rating of items testing clinical judgment was higher than that of items testing knowledge or synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the initial certifying examination is relevant to clinical practice and that many of the examination items are suitable for use in recertification. Differences in perception appear to exist between practitioners and directors, and the use of practitioner ratings is likely to be a routine part of judging the suitability of items for Board examinations in the future.
Authors: R J Glassock; J A Benson; R B Copeland; H A Godwin; W G Johanson; W Point; R L Popp; L Scherr; J H Stein; O D Taunton Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1991-01-01 Impact factor: 25.391