Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations

Background: This pilot study compared performance of University of Calgary students on internal clerkship examinations with corresponding National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) subject examinations. Methods: Between April and October 2007, students completed internal and NBME subject examinatio...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pamela Veale, Wayne Woloschuk, Sylvain Coderre, Kevin McLaughlin, Bruce Wright
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Canadian Medical Education Journal 2011-11-01
Series:Canadian Medical Education Journal
Online Access:https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/36560
id doaj-c170e11398174c58ad6de35d026d0677
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c170e11398174c58ad6de35d026d06772020-11-24T22:30:02ZengCanadian Medical Education JournalCanadian Medical Education Journal1923-12022011-11-0122e81e8123707Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject ExaminationsPamela Veale0Wayne WoloschukSylvain CoderreKevin McLaughlinBruce WrightUniversity of CalgaryBackground: This pilot study compared performance of University of Calgary students on internal clerkship examinations with corresponding National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) subject examinations. Methods: Between April and October 2007, students completed internal and NBME subject examinations following six mandatory rotations. Local faculty within each discipline set the minimum performance level (MPL) for internal examinations. Two methods of standard setting were considered for NBME exams and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Corresponding internal and NBME examination scores were compared using McNemar’s discordant pair analysis. Results: A significant and unexpected difference in failure rate between internal and external examinations was found in all clerkships. 1.4% of students were below the MPL for internal examinations and 27.3% (modified Angoff) or 25.9% (mean Hofstee compromise) (p<0.0001 for both) for the NBME. The proportion of students below MPL for internal examinations was also below the lower limit of the Hofstee compromise (14.4%). Conclusion: Possible explanations include leniency bias in internal standard setting, discrepant content validity between local curriculum and NBME examinations, difference in student perception of examinations, and performance bias due to unfamiliar units.https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/36560
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pamela Veale
Wayne Woloschuk
Sylvain Coderre
Kevin McLaughlin
Bruce Wright
spellingShingle Pamela Veale
Wayne Woloschuk
Sylvain Coderre
Kevin McLaughlin
Bruce Wright
Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations
Canadian Medical Education Journal
author_facet Pamela Veale
Wayne Woloschuk
Sylvain Coderre
Kevin McLaughlin
Bruce Wright
author_sort Pamela Veale
title Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations
title_short Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations
title_full Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations
title_fullStr Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Student Performance on Internally Prepared Clerkship Examinations and NBME Subject Examinations
title_sort comparison of student performance on internally prepared clerkship examinations and nbme subject examinations
publisher Canadian Medical Education Journal
series Canadian Medical Education Journal
issn 1923-1202
publishDate 2011-11-01
description Background: This pilot study compared performance of University of Calgary students on internal clerkship examinations with corresponding National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) subject examinations. Methods: Between April and October 2007, students completed internal and NBME subject examinations following six mandatory rotations. Local faculty within each discipline set the minimum performance level (MPL) for internal examinations. Two methods of standard setting were considered for NBME exams and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Corresponding internal and NBME examination scores were compared using McNemar’s discordant pair analysis. Results: A significant and unexpected difference in failure rate between internal and external examinations was found in all clerkships. 1.4% of students were below the MPL for internal examinations and 27.3% (modified Angoff) or 25.9% (mean Hofstee compromise) (p<0.0001 for both) for the NBME. The proportion of students below MPL for internal examinations was also below the lower limit of the Hofstee compromise (14.4%). Conclusion: Possible explanations include leniency bias in internal standard setting, discrepant content validity between local curriculum and NBME examinations, difference in student perception of examinations, and performance bias due to unfamiliar units.
url https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/36560
work_keys_str_mv AT pamelaveale comparisonofstudentperformanceoninternallypreparedclerkshipexaminationsandnbmesubjectexaminations
AT waynewoloschuk comparisonofstudentperformanceoninternallypreparedclerkshipexaminationsandnbmesubjectexaminations
AT sylvaincoderre comparisonofstudentperformanceoninternallypreparedclerkshipexaminationsandnbmesubjectexaminations
AT kevinmclaughlin comparisonofstudentperformanceoninternallypreparedclerkshipexaminationsandnbmesubjectexaminations
AT brucewright comparisonofstudentperformanceoninternallypreparedclerkshipexaminationsandnbmesubjectexaminations
_version_ 1725742139687567360