Scoring an Oral Simulation Exam - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 21
About This Presentation
Title:

Scoring an Oral Simulation Exam

Description:

Examiner Training During Exam. Observe a real simulation first ... 4. 4th year medical students. Correlation with written MC exam = .77. Predictive Validity ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: Steph6
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Scoring an Oral Simulation Exam


1
Scoring an Oral Simulation Exam
  • Elizabeth A. Witt, Ph.D.
  • American Board of Emergency Medicine

Presented at the 2005 CLEAR Annual
Conference September 15-17 Phoenix,
Arizona
2
ABEM Certification Process
  • Complete residency in Emergency Medicine
  • Pass written certification examination
  • Pass oral certification examination, a series of
    simulated patient encounters

3
Purpose of ABEMs Oral Certification Examination
  • Assess clinical performance
  • Test the application of knowledge of Emergency
    Medicine

4
Structure of ABEMs Oral Certification Examination
  • 7 simulations based on actual clinical cases
  • 1 field test simulation
  • 4 single patient encounters
  • 2 multiple patient encounters
  • One-on-one 7 different examiners
  • Examiner introduces each case and may play role
    of patient, nurse, consultant, etc.

5
(No Transcript)
6
Scoring
  • Done by the examiner during and immediately after
    the session

7
Examiner Qualifications
  • ABEM diplomate at least 5 years
  • Residency trained in EM (ACGME- or
    RCPSC-approved)
  • Actively involved in the practice of clinical
    Emergency Medicine
  • Nominated in writing by current examiner,
    director, or senior director

8
Examiner Qualifications, cont.
  • Evaluated and recommended by ABEMs Test
    Administration Committee
  • Appointed by the Board of Directors
  • Distinguished for high quality patient care,
    teaching, research, or leadership

9
Examiner Training Before Exam
  • Focus on standardizing the delivery and scoring
    of each case
  • Demonstrations
  • Training video
  • Scoring practice with feedback
  • Case presentation practice with feedback and
    coaching
  • The what-ifs

10
Examiner Training During Exam
  • Observe a real simulation first
  • Written materials support each case
  • Observed by experienced examiner early
  • End of 1st day group discussion and individual
    feedback, coaching
  • Scoring sheets and notes reviewed by chief
    examiners
  • Ongoing discussions, feedback, mentoring

11
Standardized Ratings
  • 8 performance criteria
  • Scale 1 to 8
  • Critical actions
  • Yes/No
  • Dangerous action

12
Performance Criteria
  • Data Acquisition
  • Problem Solving
  • Patient Management
  • Resource Utilization
  • Health Care Provided (Outcome)
  • Interpersonal Relations
  • Comprehension of Pathophysiology
  • Clinical Competence (Overall)

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Final Score and Pass/Fail
  • Only performance criteria ratings are used
  • Two ways to pass
  • Grand mean of all performance criteria scores gt
    5.75
  • Case score mean of performance criteria for
    each case.
  • Highest and lowest case scores are averaged.
  • If the hi-lo average AND all of the remaining
    case scores gt 5.0, pass

16
Example
  • Grand Mean Standard
  • Sum of performance criteria ratings 375
  • Number of ratings (8x4) (18x2) 68
  • Grand mean 375/68 5.51
  • 5.51 gt 5.75?
  • NO ? Fail

17
Example
  • Case Score Average (High-Low) Standard
  • Mean of performance ratings for each case 4.75,
    5.23, 5.42, 5.75, 5.83, 6.08
  • High-Low Mean (4.756.08)/2 5.42
  • Are the figures in gold all gt 5.00?
  • Yes ? Pass

18
Why Two Ways to Pass?
  • Standard setting study Bayesian procedures ?
    5.75
  • BUT a 5 is acceptable performance
  • AND there is potential for measurement error,
    fluke, etc.
  • So

5
6
5
5
5
4

Pass
5
19
A High Quality Exam
  • Interrater Reliability
  • 97 agreement on Critical Actions
  • 95 agreement on Acceptable/Unacceptable
  • 94 of all performance criteria ratings
    within 1 point
  • Discriminant Validity 1. Residency trained
    physicians 2. Physicians not trained via
    residency 3. Residents beginning 2nd year of
    residency 4. 4th year medical students
  • Correlation with written MC exam .77
  • Predictive Validity
  • Oral exam predicts performance better than
    written exam does

20
Benefits of Scoring Procedure
  • Stable pass rates
  • High involvement of EM community
  • Checks and balances
  • Standardized, yet flexible assessment

21
Speaker Contact Information
  • Elizabeth A. Witt, Ph.D.
  • American Board of Emergency Medicine
  • East Lansing, MI
  • 517-332-4800
  • ewitt_at_ABEM.org
  • www.ABEM.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com