The relationship between performance on the medical genetics and genomics in-training and certifying examinations
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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