Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27543269›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2016

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

Julian Archer, Nick Lynn, Lee Coombes, Martin Roberts, Tom Gale, Tristan Price, Sam Regan de Bere

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Using AI in healthcare education: a rapid review and commentary.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Association between graduates' factors and success rate on the Saudi Pharmacist Licensure Examination: A single-Institution cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Julian ArcherCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, Devon, UK. julian.archer@plymouth.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9983-9655
Nick LynnCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Lee CoombesCentre for Medical Education, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.
Martin RobertsCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Tom GaleCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Tristan PriceCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, Devon, UK.
Sam Regan de BereCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, Devon, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Developed CountriesLicensure, MedicalClinical CompetenceDelivery of Health CareEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInternship and ResidencyAssessmentImpactNational licensing examinationSystematic reviewValidity

Identifiers

PMID27543269
PMCPMC4992286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.