Cited by 2Innovations in Medical EducationEmergency Medicine Education and ResearchClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

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

Validity Evidence for the New American Board of Emergency Medicine Certifying Examination

Open access

Abstract

Introduction: Certification of emergency physicians includes a two‐phase process, including both a written qualifying examination and an oral certification examination. In 2026, the American Board of Emergency Medicine will institute a new certifying examination (CE), which will be an in‐person assessment with objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), including focused communication‐centered cases and procedural assessments. The objective of this paper is to provide initial validity evidence for the new CE. Methods: A unified view of validity was used to guide the collection of evidence for content validity for the new CE. Moreover, an evaluation of possible validity threats was conducted. An iterative and collaborative process including focus groups, a summit, one‐on‐one employer interviews, and public and patient input was used to identify key domains and establish the exam blueprint for the new CE. The exploratory phase for exam development, known as the Becoming Certified Initiative, spanned a two‐year timeline. Evidence was collected at a practice administration of the CE through the evaluation of candidates' and examiners' perceptions of alignment of case content to emergency medicine (EM) practice, as well as understanding and clarity of the cases and their instructions. Results: The new CE blueprint comprises 10 components: four clinical cases covering clinical decision‐making and prioritization and six OSCEs covering procedures, ultrasound, patient‐centered communication, reassessment, difficult conversations (delivering unwanted or unexpected information), and managing conflict. Both candidate and examiner volunteers rated the cases as clinically accurate and relevant to EM practice. They also reported that case instructions and prompts within the cases were generally clear and understandable. Conclusion: This study provides important early validity evidence for the new CE to inform emergency physicians and the public at large.

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/aet2.70159

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 7 · Cited by 2

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 10.1016/S0361-1124(76)80289-4 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/acem.13068 · DOI
  3. American Educational Research Association, 2014, The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
  4. 10.1002/aet2.10835 · DOI
  5. Bandalos D. L., 2018, Measurement Theory and Applications for Social Sciences, 267
  6. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.02.016 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.ajem.2025.10.009 · DOI
  8. 10.1186/s12909-024-05694-7 · DOI
  9. 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000798 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Gottlieb, M., Holzman, M., Joldersma, K. B., Ruff, K. C., Farrell, S. E., Ankel, F. K., Kendall, J. L., Barton, M. A., & Gorgas, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • Holzman Consulting Staunton Virginia USA
  • American Board of Emergency Medicine (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Regions Hospital (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Gottlieb, Michael
Venue
AEM Education and Training
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2026-03-30
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
e70159-e70159
ISSN
2472-5390 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7143744663
Cited by
2
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
12.81
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
certification examination, OSCE, content validity, American Board of Emergency Medicine, patient-centered communication, difficult conversations, clinical decision-making, threats to validity

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