CONTEXT Progress tests, in which learners are repeatedly assessed on equivalent content at different times in their training and provided with feedback, would seem to lend themselves well to a competency-based framework, which requires more frequent formative assessments. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) progress test is a relatively new form of assessment that is used to assess the progression of clinical skills. The purpose of this study was to establish further evidence for the use of an OSCE progress test by demonstrating an association between scores from this assessment method and those from a national high-stakes examination. CONCLUSIONS This study provides further evidence for the use of OSCE progress testing by demonstrating a correlation between scores from an OSCE progress test and a national high-stakes examination. Furthermore, there is evidence that OSCE progress test scores are predictive of future performance on a national high-stakes examination.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the performance of the Ebel standard-setting method for the spring 2019 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada internal medicine certification examination consisting of multiple-choice questions. Specifically, the following parameters were evaluated: inter-rater agreement, the correlations between Ebel scores and item facility indices, the impact of raters’ knowledge of correct answers on the Ebel score, and the effects of raters’ specialty on inter-rater agreement and Ebel scores.Methods: Data were drawn from a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada certification exam. The Ebel method was applied to 203 multiple-choice questions by 49 raters. Facility indices came from 194 candidates. We computed the Fleiss kappa and the Pearson correlations between Ebel scores and item facility indices. We investigated differences in the Ebel score according to whether correct answers were provided or not and differences between internists and other specialists using the t-test.Results: The Fleiss kappa was below 0.15 for both facility and relevance. The correlation between Ebel scores and facility indices was low when correct answers were provided and negligible when they were not. The Ebel score was the same whether the correct answers were provided or not. Inter-rater agreement and Ebel scores were not significantly different between internists and other specialists.Conclusion: Inter-rater agreement and correlations between item Ebel scores and facility indices were consistently low; furthermore, raters’ knowledge of the correct answers and raters’ specialty had no effect on Ebel scores in the present setting.

No abstract

No abstract