Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of large scale licensing examinations in highly developed countries: a systematic review

Archer, Julian, Lynn, Nick, Coombes, Lee, Roberts, Martin, Gale, Tom, Price, Tristan, Regan de Bere, Sam·2016·BMC Medical Education
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0729-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To investigate the existing evidence base for the validity of large-scale licensing examinations including their impact. METHODS: Systematic review against a validity framework exploring: Embase (Ovid Medline); Medline (EBSCO); PubMed; Wiley Online; ScienceDirect; and PsychINFO from 2005 to April 2015. All papers were included when they discussed national or large regional (State level) examinations for clinical professionals, linked to examinations in early careers or near the point of graduation, and where success was required to subsequently be able to practice. Using a standardized data extraction form, two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics, with the rest of the team resolving any disagreement. A validity framework was used as developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education to evaluate each paper's evidence to support or refute the validity of national licensing examinations. RESULTS: 24 published articles provided evidence of validity across the five domains of the validity framework. Most papers (n = 22) provided evidence of national licensing examinations relationships to other variables and their consequential validity. Overall there was evidence that those who do well on earlier or on subsequent examinations also do well on national testing. There is a correlation between NLE performance and some patient outcomes and rates of complaints, but no causal evidence has been established. CONCLUSIONS: The debate around licensure examinations is strong on opinion but weak on validity evidence. This is especially true of the wider claims that licensure examinations improve patient safety and practitioner competence.

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 · 10.1186/s12909-016-0729-7

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Archer J, Lynn N, Roberts M, Coombes L, Gale T, Regan de Bere S. A Systematic Review on the impact of licensing examinations for doctors in countries comparable to the UK: Final Report. http://www.gmc-uk.org/A_systematic_review_on_the_impact_of_licensing_examinations__for_doctors_in_countries_comparable_to_the_UK.pdf_61103496.pdf : General Medical Council;2015.
  2. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Rodgers4/publication/233866356_Guidance_on_the_conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_product_from_the_ESRC_Methods_Programme/links/02e7e5231e8f3a6183000000.pdf2006 .
  3. USMLE CEUP. Comprehensive Review of USMLE Summary of Final Report and Recommendations. 2008.
  4. Sutherland KL, S. Regulation and Quality Improvement a review of the evidence. Health Found. 2006

Cited by

See all 42

Metadata

Authors
Archer, J., Lynn, N., Coombes, L., Roberts, M., Gale, T., Price, T., & Regan de Bere, S.
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-08-19
Volume
16
Issue
1
ISSN
1472-6920
DOI
10.1186/s12909-016-0729-7
Cited by
42
References
53
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Funders
General Medical Council (GMC189)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.