Suppr超能文献

美国急诊医学委员会紧急医疗服务认证考试的初始效度证据。

Initial Validity Evidence for the American Board of Emergency Medicine Emergency Medical Services Certification Examination.

作者信息

Reisdorff Earl J, Joldersma Kevin B, Kraus Chadd K, Barton Melissa A, Knapp Barry J, Kupas Douglas F, Clemency Brian M, Daya Mohamud

机构信息

American Board of Emergency Medicine, East Lansing, Michigan.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2025;29(3):283-288. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2024.2379872. Epub 2024 Jul 31.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) Emergency Medical Services Medicine (EMS) subspecialty was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on September 23, 2010. Subspecialty certification in EMS was contingent on two key elements-completing Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited EMS training and passing the subspecialty certification examination developed by ABEM. The first EMS certification examination was offered in October 2013. Meaningful certification requires rigorous assessment. In this instance, the EMS certification examination sought to embrace the tenets of validity, reliability, and fairness. For the purposes of this report, the sources of validity evidence were anchored on the EMS core content, the examination development process, and the association between fellowship training and passing the certification examination.

METHODS

We chose to use validity evidence that included: 1) content validity (based on the EMS core content); 2) response processes (test items required intended cognitive processes); 3) internal structure supported by the internal relationships among items; 4) relations to other variables, specifically the association between examination performance and ACGME-accredited fellowship training; and 5) the consequences of testing.

RESULTS

There is strong content validity evidence for the EMS examination based on the core content and its detailed development process. The core content and supporting job-task analysis was also used to define the examination blueprint. Internal structure support was evidenced by Cronbach's coefficient alpha, which ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. Physicians who completed ACGME-accredited EMS fellowship training were more likely to pass the EMS certification examination (chi square,  < 0.0001; Cramér's,  = 0.24). Finally, there were two sources of consequential validity evidence-use of test results to determine certification and use of the resulting certificate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial and varied validity evidence to support the use of the EMS certifying examination in making summative decisions to award certification in EMS. Of note, there was a statistically significant association between ACGME-accredited fellowship training and passing the examination.

摘要

目标

美国急诊医学委员会(ABEM)的急诊医疗服务医学(EMS)亚专业于2010年9月23日获得美国医学专业委员会批准。EMS亚专业认证取决于两个关键要素——完成研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)认可的EMS培训并通过ABEM开发的亚专业认证考试。首次EMS认证考试于2013年10月举行。有意义的认证需要严格的评估。在这种情况下,EMS认证考试力求符合有效性、可靠性和公平性原则。就本报告而言,有效性证据的来源基于EMS核心内容、考试开发过程以及专科培训与通过认证考试之间的关联。

方法

我们选择使用包括以下内容的有效性证据:1)内容有效性(基于EMS核心内容);2)应答过程(测试项目需要预期的认知过程);3)由项目之间的内部关系支持的内部结构;4)与其他变量的关系,特别是考试成绩与ACGME认可的专科培训之间的关联;5)测试的后果。

结果

基于核心内容及其详细的开发过程,有强有力的内容有效性证据支持EMS考试。核心内容和辅助性工作任务分析也用于确定考试蓝图。内部结构的支持通过克朗巴赫α系数得到证明,其范围为0.82至0.92。完成ACGME认可的EMS专科培训的医生更有可能通过EMS认证考试(卡方检验,<0.0001;克莱默系数,=0.24)。最后,有两个结果有效性证据来源——使用测试结果来确定认证以及使用所获得的证书。

结论

有大量且多样的有效性证据支持使用EMS认证考试来做出授予EMS认证的总结性决策。值得注意的是,ACGME认可的专科培训与通过考试之间存在统计学上的显著关联。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验