The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive Validity of Certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certification process. DESIGN: Prospective measurement of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of 185 ABIM-certified and 74 noncertified internists by a written examination; evaluation by professional associates; a patient questionnaire assessing satisfaction with care, physician's counseling role, and preventive care; and review of records of patients with common illnesses. SUBJECTS: Practicing internists who completed training or received ABIM certification 5 to 10 years previously. SETTING: Office-based practices in six western states. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS: Physicians certified by the ABIM had significantly higher scores on the written examination than the noncertified physicians, and scores on our examination correlated highly with the ABIM certification examination (r = 0.73). Ratings of clinical skills by professional associates were significantly higher for certified internists and also correlated highly with ABIM examination scores (r = 0.53 to 0.59). Regression analysis showed that ABIM certification status was the major variable affecting performance on these measures of clinical competence. Results from other measures did not show many differences between certified and noncertified physicians in the care of patients with common illnesses, but modest differences in preventive care and a few differences in outcome favored the certified physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of findings from the written examination and the professional associate ratings with certification status and original ABIM certification examination scores shows predictive validity of ABIM certification. Further studies are needed to determine if certification status predicts important differences in the care of patients with complex illnesses.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
A self-rating depression scale
ZUNG, W. W. K. (1965) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1965.01720310065008 · Cited by 9,813
Cited by
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/bf00596229 · Cited by 1,247
Primary Care Physicians Who Treat Blacks and Whites
Bach, P. B., Pham, H. H., Schrag, D., Tate, R. C., & Hargraves, J. L. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa040609 · Cited by 986
Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31
Norcini, J., & Burch, V. (2007) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590701775453 · Cited by 984
Learning needs assessment: assessing the need
Grant, J. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7330.156 · Cited by 432
Preserving the Physician-Patient Relationship in the Era of Managed Care
Emanuel, E. J. (1995) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520280069043 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Ramsey, P. G., Carline, J. D., Inui, T. S., Larson, E. B., LoGerfo, J. P., & Wenrich, M. D.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1989-05-01
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 719-719
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2016989664
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictive Validity of Certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-110-9-719
- The paper
- Ramsey, P. G., Carline, J. D., Inui, T. S., Larson, E. B., LoGerfo, J. P., & Wenrich, M. D. (1989). Predictive Validity of Certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-110-9-719
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.