Document Detail


American Board of Radiology certifying examination: oral versus computer-based format.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20858803     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study of a computer-based examination for primary certification by the American Board of Radiology was designed to acquire comparative data on candidates that were measures of individual performance on the oral examination compared with the computer-based examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pilot computer-based pediatric radiology examination was designed by experienced oral board examiners and the pediatric subspecialty trustees. Images were chosen from the examination repository of the American Board of Radiology. The 20-minute examination was designed to include 8-10 cases with 26-31 scorable units covering all aspects of pediatric radiology. RESULTS: Among the 1,317 candidates taking the oral board examination, 1,048 candidates (79.6%) participated in the voluntary pilot examination. The scores of the two examinations were subjected to statistical analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of the pilot examination were 94.5% and 45.7%. The overall accuracy was 92.8%. Seventy-five candidates (7.2%) who participated in this study received different verdicts on the pilot examination and the pediatric radiology category of the oral examination. Fifty-six of these candidates (5.3%) failed the pilot examination but passed in the oral pediatric radiology category; 19 of the candidates (1.8%) passed the pilot examination but failed the oral pediatric radiology test. Pilot examination scores were higher for candidates who passed the oral pediatric radiology category (median score, 80; interquartile range, 74.1-85.2) than for candidates who failed (median score, 65.4; interquartile range, 58.6-71.0) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The pediatric pilot examination was useful for differentiating passing candidates from failing candidates when the score in the pediatric radiology category of the oral examination was used as the reference standard. The overall accuracy was 92.8%.
Authors:
Caroline L Hollingsworth; Cooper C Wriston; George S Bisset; Janet L Strife; Jennifer L Bosma; Anthony M Gerdeman; Gary J Becker
Related Documents :
12669573 - Capacity planning. knowing the score.
22418273 - Results of a 100-point scale for evaluating job satisfaction and the occupational depre...
8309713 - What does the bdi measure in chronic pain?
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  AJR. American journal of roentgenology     Volume:  195     ISSN:  1546-3141     ISO Abbreviation:  AJR Am J Roentgenol     Publication Date:  2010 Oct 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-09-22     Completed Date:  2010-10-29     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7708173     Medline TA:  AJR Am J Roentgenol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  820-4     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA. holli016@mc.duke.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Certification / methods*
Computers*
Pediatrics*
Pilot Projects
Radiology*
United States

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Melvin m. Figley.
Next Document:  Prospective Study of Access Site Complications of Automated Contrast Injection With Peripheral Venou...