Cited by 1Innovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and AdmissionsTeacher Education and Assessments

The relationship between performance on the medical genetics and genomics in-training and certifying examinations

Open access
Waggoner, Darrel J., O’Donnell, Francis, Ligon, Azra H., Robin, Nathaniel H., McAllister, Kevin T., Blitzer, Miriam G.·2022·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

Purpose The American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ABMGG) certifying examinations (CEs) are designed to assess relevant basic knowledge, clinical knowledge, and diagnostic skills of board-eligible candidates in primary specialty areas. The ABMGG in-training examinations (ITEs) provide formative feedback regarding knowledge and learning over time and assess readiness to attempt board certification. This study addresses the validity of the ABMGG ITE by evaluating its relationship with performance on CE utilizing established psychometric approaches. Methods Statistical analysis included bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients and linear regression to evaluate the strength of associations between ITE scores and CE scores. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between ITE scores and the probability of passing each CE. Results Logistic regression results indicated that ITE scores accounted for 22% to 44% of the variability in CE outcomes. Across 3 certification cycles, for every 1-point increase in ITE scores, the odds ratio for earning a passing score increased by a factor of 1.12 to 1.20 for the general CE, 1.14 to 1.25 for the clinical CE, and 1.12 to 1.20 for the laboratory CEs. Conclusion The findings show a positive correlation between performance on the ITE examination and performance on and passing the ABMGG CE.

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 · 10.1016/j.gim.2021.09.008

Cites

Statistics

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 4 · Cited by 1

Authors
Waggoner, D. J., O’Donnell, F., Ligon, A. H., Robin, N. H., McAllister, K. T., & Blitzer, M. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • National Board of Medical Examiners (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Blitzer, Miriam G.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
225-231
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3216415432
Cited by
1
References
4
Citations by year
2024: 1
FWCI
0.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Institutes for Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
Keywords
in-training examination, certification examination, board certification, examination validity, psychometric assessment, medical genetics education
MeSH terms
Certification, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Genetics, Medical, Humans, Internship and Residency, United States, Genomics

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