Cited by 11Innovations in Medical EducationEmergency Medicine Education and ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Early validity and reliability evidence for the American Board of Emergency Medicine Virtual Oral Examination

Open access

Abstract

Background: The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) in‐person Oral Certification Examination (OCE) was halted abruptly in 2020 due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The OCE was reconfigured to be administered in a virtual environment starting in December 2020. Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether there was sufficient validity and reliability evidence to support the continued use of the ABEM virtual Oral Examination (VOE) for certification decisions. Methods: This retrospective, descriptive study used multiple data sources to provide validity evidence and reliability data. Validity evidence focused on test content, response processes, internal structure (e.g., internal consistency and item response theory), and the consequences of testing. A multifaceted Rasch reliability coefficient was used to measure reliability. Study data were from two 2019 in‐person OCEs and the first four VOE administrations. Results: There were 2279 physicians who took the 2019 in‐person OCE examination and 2153 physicians who took the VOE during the study period. Among the OCE group, 92.0% agreed or strongly agreed that the cases on the examination were cases that an emergency physician should be expected to see; 91.1% of the VOE group agreed or strongly agreed. A similar pattern of responses given to a question about whether the cases on the examination were cases that they had seen. Additional evidence of validity was obtained by the use of the EM Model, the process for case development, the use of think‐aloud protocols, and similar test performance patterns (e.g., pass rates). For reliability, the Rasch reliability coefficients for the OCE and the VOE during the study period were all >0.90. Conclusions: There was substantial validity evidence and reliability to support ongoing use of the ABEM VOE to make confident and defensible certification decisions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aet2.10850

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 14 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Carmines EG, 1979, Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–017
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on measurement in education, 2014, Standards for Education and Psychological Testing, 13
  3. Bandalos DL, 2018, Measurement Theory and Applications for Social Sciences, 267
  4. 10.1067/mem.2003.214 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/acem.13068 · DOI
  6. Maatsch JL, 1982, Emergency Medicine Annual: Nineteen Eighty‐Two, 183
  7. Reinhart MA, 1995, Assessing Clinical Reasoning: the Oral Examination and Alternative Methods, 31
  8. 10.1097/00001888-199009000-00036 · DOI
  9. Wolfe EW, 2007, Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, 71
  10. 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.03.018 · DOI
  12. Messick S, 1989, Educational Measurement, 13
  13. 10.1111/medu.12678 · DOI
  14. 10.4300/JGME-D-21-00067.1 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/aet2.10462 · DOI
  16. 10.1197/aemj.9.11.1249 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/acem.13137 · DOI
  18. Bandalos DL, 2018, Measurement Theory and Applications for Social Sciences, 529

Metadata

Authors
Chudnofsky, C. R., Reisdorff, E. J., Joldersma, K. B., Ruff, K. C., Goyal, D. G., & Gorgas, D. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • American Board of Emergency Medicine (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Reisdorff, Earl J.
Venue
AEM Education and Training
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-03-26
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e10850-e10850
ISSN
2472-5390 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4361010265
Cited by
11
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AEM Education and Training (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency Medicine Education and Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
American Board of Emergency Medicine, emergency medicine board certification, test validity, test reliability, item response theory, internal consistency, COVID-19 pandemic, think-aloud, case development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review