ArticleHNO2026
[The European Board Examination in Otorhinolaryngology as a high-quality test instrument: psychometric measures in a long-term comparison. German version].
Article in HNO, 2026. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe European Board Examination in Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (EBEORL-HNS) is a Europe-wide specialty examination consisting of a written multiple-choice test and a standardized oral examination. Only limited psychometric analyses have been published to date.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate examination data from recent years and assess the formats regarding difficulty, reliability, and pass rates. MATERIALS AND
methodsAggregated data from 2013-2024 were analyzed. Mean scores, standard deviations, item difficulty, item discrimination, Cronbach's alpha, and Angoff's score were calculated. The written and oral parts were examined descriptively and comparatively.
resultsThe written examination demonstrated a mean difficulty of 67% (proportion of correctly answered items), a pass rate of 82%, and Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 (internal consistency). The passing cutoff (according to the Angoff method) was 59 points on average. The oral part showed a mean difficulty of 70%, a pass rate of 74%, and an average score of around 3.0 on a four-point scale. Year-to-year variability largely reflected differences in the international candidate cohorts.
conclusionThe findings confirm that the EBEORL-HNS demonstrates stable psychometric quality. Compared to national specialty examinations, it offers high transparency and clearly defined quality criteria. Variations in performance appear more related to heterogeneous training backgrounds than to shortcomings of the assessment tools.
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.