Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38734603›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

The reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand "Hot Case" examination.

Kenneth R Hoffman, David Swanson, Stuart Lane, Chris Nickson, Paul Brand, Anna T Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The CICM second part viva reliability coefficient: Which index, for which decision, against which benchmark?Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. The reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand viva examination.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Kenneth R HoffmanIntensive Care Unit, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. k.hoffman@alfred.org.au.
David SwansonDepartment of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Stuart LaneSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Chris NicksonIntensive Care Unit, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul BrandCollege of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, Australia.
Anna T RyanDepartment of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh stakes examinations used to credential trainees for independent specialist practice should be evaluated periodically to ensure defensible decisions are made. This study aims to quantify the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (CICM) Hot Case reliability coefficient and evaluate contributions to variance from candidates, cases and examiners.

methodsThis retrospective, de-identified analysis of CICM examination data used descriptive statistics and generalisability theory to evaluate the reliability of the Hot Case examination component. Decision studies were used to project generalisability coefficients for alternate examination designs.

resultsExamination results from 2019 to 2022 included 592 Hot Cases, totalling 1184 individual examiner scores. The mean examiner Hot Case score was 5.17 (standard deviation 1.65). The correlation between candidates' two Hot Case scores was low (0.30). The overall reliability coefficient for the Hot Case component consisting of two cases observed by two separate pairs of examiners was 0.42. Sources of variance included candidate proficiency (25%), case difficulty and case specificity (63.4%), examiner stringency (3.5%) and other error (8.2%). To achieve a reliability coefficient of > 0.8 a candidate would need to perform 11 Hot Cases observed by two examiners.

conclusionThe reliability coefficient for the Hot Case component of the CICM second part examination is below the generally accepted value for a high stakes examination. Modifications to case selection and introduction of a clear scoring rubric to mitigate the effects of variation in case difficulty may be helpful. Increasing the number of cases and overall assessment time appears to be the best way to increase the overall reliability. Further research is required to assess the combined reliability of the Hot Case and viva components.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCritical CareEducational MeasurementAustraliaEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansNew ZealandReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesCredentiallingExaminationGeneralisability theoryIntensive careReliability

Identifiers

PMID38734603
PMCPMC11088756

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.