ArticleBMC medical education2026
Psychometric evaluation of the Ethiopian National Medical Licensing Examination: evidence from classical and item response theory analyses.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLicensing examinations play a crucial role in protecting the public by establishing a minimum level of competency for safe practice. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on the psychometric quality of the National Medical Licensing Examination (NMLE) is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the NMLE in assessing medical graduates in Ethiopia.
methodsThis cross-sectional study assessed the psychometric validity of the NMLE using Classical Test Theory (CTT) and the two-parameter logistic (2PL) Item Response Theory (IRT) models. We assessed the difficulty of the questions, the exam's ability to distinguish between different levels of ability, and its overall reliability. We evaluated model fit using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and likelihood ratio tests. We conducted Differential Item Functioning (DIF) using Mantel-Haenszel, Lord's test, Raju's method, and logistic regression methods, and assessed item contributions based on factor loading and communality values. We used data from the February 2024 exam taken by 1,259 candidates across 19 schools.
resultsThe analysis revealed that the exam demonstrated high overall reliability (α = 0.87) and correctly classified borderline candidates. However, several items didn't effectively distinguish between candidates with different levels of performance (mean = 0.18), and a few questions showed potential bias against candidates from private medical colleges.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the examination was appropriate for assessing minimum competency, but it needs review to address potential bias. We recommend ongoing monitoring of item quality and enhancing faculty training to improve the quality of exam items.
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.