The study reports a powerful link between briefing practices and attitudes towards safety. Findings build on previous work by reporting on the relationship between briefings and safety climate within a 4-year period. Briefings, however, remain difficult to establish in local contexts without appropriate team-based patient safety education. Success in establishing a safety culture, with associated practices, may depend on first establishing unidirectional, positive change in attitudes to create a safety climate.
The purpose of multiple choice tests of medical knowledge is to estimate as accurately as possible a candidate's level of knowledge. However, concern is sometimes expressed that multiple choice tests may also discriminate in undesirable and irrelevant ways, such as between minority ethnic groups or by sex of candidates. There is little literature to establish whether multiple choice tests may also discriminate against students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), in particular those with a diagnosis of dyslexia, and whether the commonly-used accommodations allow such students to perform up to their capability. We looked for evidence to help us determine whether multiple choice tests could be relied upon to test all medical students fairly, regardless of disability. We analyzed the mean scores of over 900 undergraduate medical students on eight multiple-choice progress tests containing 1,000 items using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. We included disability, gender and ethnicity as possible explanatory factors, as well as year group. There was no significant difference between mean scores of students with an SLD who had test accommodations and students with no SLD and no test accommodation. Virtually all students were able to complete the tests within the allowed time. There were no significant differences between the mean scores of known minority ethnic groups or between the genders. We conclude that properly-designed multiple-choice tests of medical knowledge do not systematically discriminate against medical students with specific learning disabilities.
BackgroundTo investigate the existing evidence base for the validity of large-scale licensing examinations including their impact.MethodsSystematic 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.Results24 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.