ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2026
The reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand viva examination.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generalisability analyses of the College of Intensive Care Medicine Second Part examination: Theory meets practice: In response to: 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 · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Examinations used to credential trainees for independent specialist practice in intensive care medicine should be evaluated to demonstrate their levels of reliability and validity. This study aimed to quantify the reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (CICM) second part viva examination and report the variation due to candidate proficiency, station difficulty, case specificity, and examiner stringency. Design: This retrospective analysis of the CICM examination database used generalisability theory to determine the overall reliability coefficient of the viva examination. Decision studies were used to calculate the number of stations required for a reliability coefficient of >0.8. Setting: The CICM assesses intensive care trainees in Australia and New Zealand for independent specialist practice. Participants: De-identified candidate results from 2019 to 2023 totalled 376 viva examination attempts with individual examiner scores from 2774 viva stations. Results: The mean viva station score was 5.6 (standard deviation: 1.47). The reliability coefficient for the second part eight-station viva examination was 0.61. Sources of variance were candidate proficiency of 15.4 %, station difficulty of 22.8 %, case specificity of 51.5 %, examiner stringency of 1.4 %, and other error of 8.8 %. Twenty viva stations would be required to achieve a reliability coefficient of >0.8. Conclusion: The CICM second part viva examination has a reliability coefficient below the generally accepted value for a high-stakes examination. Case specificity and station difficulty made the largest contribution to score variance. Increasing the number of viva stations and introduction of pass/fail standard setting would be effective methods for increasing examination reliability.
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.