Performance on the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification examination: are superior test-taking skills alone sufficient to pass?
- PMID: 21383217
- DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.02.100162
Performance on the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification examination: are superior test-taking skills alone sufficient to pass?
Abstract
Introduction: Certification examinations used by American specialty boards have been the sine qua non for demonstrating the knowledge sufficient for attainment of board certification in the United States for more than 75 years. Some people contend that the examination is predominantly a test of superior test-taking skills rather than of family medicine decision-making ability. In an effort to explore the validity of this assertion, we administered the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Certification to examinees who had demonstrated proficiency in taking standardized tests but had limited medical knowledge.
Methods: Four nonphysician experts in the field of measurement and testing were administered one version of the 2009 ABFM certification examination. Scaled scores were calculated for each examinee, and psychometric analyses were performed on the examinees responses to examination items and compared with the performance of physicians who took the same examination.
Results: The minimum passing threshold for the examination was a scaled score of 390, corresponding to 57.7% to 61.0% of questions answered correctly, depending on the version of the examination. The 4 nonphysician examinees performed poorly, with scaled scores that ranged from 20 to 160 (mean, 87.5; SD, 57.4). The number of questions answered correctly ranged from 24.0% to 35.1% (mean, 29.2%; SD, 0.05%). Rasch analyses of the examination items revealed that the nonphysician examinees were more likely to use guessing strategies in an effort to answer questions correctly. Distracter analysis suggest near-complete randomness in the nonphysician responses.
Conclusions: Though all 4 nonphysician examinees performed better than would have been predicted by chance alone, none performed well enough to even fall within 8 SE below the passing thresholds; their performance was far below that of almost all physicians who completed the examination. Given that the nonphysicians relied heavily on the identifying cues in the phrasing of items and the manner in which response options were presented, the results affirm the notion that the ABFM certification examination is not primarily a measure of generic test-taking ability but measures information critical to the estimation of a family physician's knowledge sufficient for certification. Item analysis confirmed that items were well written, provided minimal cueing, and required medical knowledge to answer correctly.
Comment in
-
Guest family physician commentaries.J Am Board Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;24(2):136-7. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.02.110005. J Am Board Fam Med. 2011. PMID: 21383211 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
What should physicians know about hypertension? The implicit knowledge requirements in the maintenance of certification self-assessment module.Fam Med. 2007 Apr;39(4):280-3. Fam Med. 2007. PMID: 17401773
-
Board recertification gets tougher.Med Econ. 2003 Nov 21;80(22):29-30, 34, 37. Med Econ. 2003. PMID: 14712749 No abstract available.
-
A Significant Number of Charter Diplomates Participate in American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Maintenance of Certification.J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;28(4):439-40. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.04.150032. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015. PMID: 26152433
-
Lifelong learning and the maintenance of certification.J Am Coll Radiol. 2004 Mar;1(3):199-203; discussion 204-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2003.12.010. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004. PMID: 17411559 Review.
-
Helping Family Physicians Keep Up to Date: A Next Step in the Pursuit of Mastery.J Am Board Fam Med. 2020 Sep-Oct;33(Suppl):S24-S27. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.S1.200154. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020. PMID: 32928946 Review.
Cited by
-
Assessment of ChatGPT-4 in Family Medicine Board Examinations Using Advanced AI Learning and Analytical Methods: Observational Study.JMIR Med Educ. 2024 Oct 8;10:e56128. doi: 10.2196/56128. JMIR Med Educ. 2024. PMID: 39378442 Free PMC article.
-
The Impact of 3-Option Responses to Multiple-Choice Questions on Guessing Strategies and Cut Score Determinations.J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2017 Apr;5(2):84-89. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2017. PMID: 28367465 Free PMC article.
-
Participating in university entrance exam despite repeated failure: a qualitative study of participants' experiences.Int J Med Educ. 2016 Oct 22;7:345-353. doi: 10.5116/ijme.57eb.cc09. Int J Med Educ. 2016. PMID: 27771629 Free PMC article.
-
The consequential validity of ABFM examinations.Ann Fam Med. 2014 May-Jun;12(3):280-2. doi: 10.1370/afm.1647. Ann Fam Med. 2014. PMID: 24821902 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
The reliability of ABFM examinations: implications for test-takers.Ann Fam Med. 2011 Sep-Oct;9(5):463-4. doi: 10.1370/afm.1303. Ann Fam Med. 2011. PMID: 21911766 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources