TY - JOUR
T1 - Pediatric Examinations Content Validity Comparison
T2 - In-House Versus NBME Examination
AU - Narchi, Hassib
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2013, Springer International Publishing.
PY - 2013/6/1
Y1 - 2013/6/1
N2 - Objective: Comparison of the content validity of an in-house summative pediatric examination (clinical examination, oral and non-clinical skills assessment) and the American National Board for Medical Examiners Pediatrics Subject Examination (NBME-P) taken by sixth year medical students at the end of their senior pediatric clerkship in our institution. Methods: The content validity of both examinations was compared over five academic years using a modified version of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Aknowledge and comprehension, Bapplication and analysis, Csynthesis and evaluation, DAttitude and Eskills. We analyzed which of these educational objectives were evaluated by each assessment tool. Results: Knowledge and comprehension, application and analysis, synthesis and evaluation were adequately evaluated by the clinical, the oral, the non-clinical and the NBME examinations, although not necessarily by the individual components of each assessment. Attitude was adequately tested by the clinical examination only, while psychomotor skills were adequately evaluated only by the clinical and the non-clinical examinations. Conclusions: No single assessment tool adequately evaluated all educational objectives. The results have led us to modify our examination assessment tools of medical students during a clerkship. A diversified range of assessment tools is still needed for that purpose.
AB - Objective: Comparison of the content validity of an in-house summative pediatric examination (clinical examination, oral and non-clinical skills assessment) and the American National Board for Medical Examiners Pediatrics Subject Examination (NBME-P) taken by sixth year medical students at the end of their senior pediatric clerkship in our institution. Methods: The content validity of both examinations was compared over five academic years using a modified version of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Aknowledge and comprehension, Bapplication and analysis, Csynthesis and evaluation, DAttitude and Eskills. We analyzed which of these educational objectives were evaluated by each assessment tool. Results: Knowledge and comprehension, application and analysis, synthesis and evaluation were adequately evaluated by the clinical, the oral, the non-clinical and the NBME examinations, although not necessarily by the individual components of each assessment. Attitude was adequately tested by the clinical examination only, while psychomotor skills were adequately evaluated only by the clinical and the non-clinical examinations. Conclusions: No single assessment tool adequately evaluated all educational objectives. The results have led us to modify our examination assessment tools of medical students during a clerkship. A diversified range of assessment tools is still needed for that purpose.
KW - Clinical Clerkship
KW - Educational Measurement
KW - Medical
KW - Students
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061932849&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061932849&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/BF03341628
DO - 10.1007/BF03341628
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85061932849
SN - 2156-8650
VL - 23
SP - 250
EP - 258
JO - Medical Science Educator
JF - Medical Science Educator
IS - 2
ER -