ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Multimodal In-training Examination in an Emergency Medicine Residency Training Program: A Longitudinal Observational Study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In-training examination (ITE) has been widely adopted as an assessment tool to measure residents' competency. We incorporated different formats of assessments into the emergency medicine (EM) residency training program to form a multimodal, multistation ITE. This study was conducted to examine the cost and effectiveness of its different testing formats. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study in a tertiary teaching hospital in Taiwan. Nine EM residents were enrolled and followed for 4 years, and the biannual ITE scores were recorded and analyzed. Each ITE consisted of 8-10 stations and was categorized into four formats: multiple-choice question (MCQ), question and answer (QA), oral examination (OE), and high-fidelity simulation (HFS) formats. The learner satisfaction, validity, reliability, and costs were analyzed. Results: 486 station scores were recorded during the 4 years. The numbers of MCQ, OE, QA, and HFS stations were 45 (9.26%), 90 (18.5%), 198 (40.7%), and 135 (27.8%), respectively. The overall Cronbach's alpha reached 0.968, indicating good overall internal consistency. The correlation with EM board examination was highest for HFS (ρ = 0.657). The average costs of an MCQ station, an OE station, and an HFS station were ~3, 14, and 21 times that of a QA station. Conclusions: Multi-dimensional assessment contributes to good reliability. HFS correlates best with the final training exam score but is also the most expensive format among ITEs. Increased testing domains with various formats improve ITE's overall reliability. Program directors must understand each test format's strengths and limitations to bring forth the best combination of exams under the local context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.