ArticleBMC medical education2024
Utility of RAND/UCLA appropriateness method in validating multiple-choice questions on ECG.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the utility of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) in validating expert consensus-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on electrocardiogram (ECG).
methodsAccording to the RAM user's manual, nine panelists comprising various experts who routinely handle ECGs were asked to reach a consensus in three phases: a preparatory phase (round 0), an online test phase (round 1), and a face-to-face expert panel meeting (round 2). In round 0, the objectives and future timeline of the study were elucidated to the nine expert panelists with a summary of relevant literature. In round 1, 100 ECG questions prepared by two skilled cardiologists were answered, and the success rate was calculated by dividing the number of correct answers by 9. Furthermore, the questions were stratified into "Appropriate," "Discussion," or "Inappropriate" according to the median score and interquartile range (IQR) of appropriateness rating by nine panelists. In round 2, the validity of the 100 ECG questions was discussed in an expert panel meeting according to the results of round 1 and finally reassessed as "Appropriate," "Candidate," "Revision," and "Defer."
resultsIn round 1 results, the average success rate of the nine experts was 0.89. Using the median score and IQR, 54 questions were classified as " Discussion." In the expert panel meeting in round 2, 23% of the original 100 questions was ultimately deemed inappropriate, although they had been prepared by two skilled cardiologists. Most of the 46 questions categorized as "Appropriate" using the median score and IQR in round 1 were considered "Appropriate" even after round 2 (44/46, 95.7%).
conclusionsThe use of the median score and IQR allowed for a more objective determination of question validity. The RAM may help select appropriate questions, contributing to the preparation of higher-quality tests.
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.