Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors' Use of and Opinions about Clerkship Examinations

Paul A. Hemmer, Karen Szauter, T. Andrew Allbritton, D. Michael Elnicki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: For years, quantifiable examinations have been a core component of assessing medical student competence during the internal medicine clerkship. Purpose: To determine how internal medicine clerkship directors use and view examinations and how uses of examinations have changed. Methods: In 1999, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted a confidential survey of its 123 institutional members. Results: Survey response rate was 89% (109/123). The National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination was used by 83%, alone (49%) or in combination with a faculty developed examination or a standardized patient examination (34%). Minimum passing scores were required for the subject exam by 80%, for faculty-developed examinations by 65%, and for the standardized patient exam by 63%. Examinations contribute approximately 25% toward a student's final grade. Students with acceptable clerkship performance s but who fail an exam typically retest after self-study. Students who fail a retest receive unsatisfactory grades and require additional medicine experience. Of the clerkship directors who reported using the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination, 45 (50%) provided comments on ways to improve the examination. Comments focused on examination content, reporting results, basing the exam on a published core curriculum, and general administrative issues. Over the past decade, use of the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination has increased (66% to 83%), use of faculty-developed examinations has declined (46% to 27%), and the use of a clerkship standardized patient examination increased sharply (2% to 27%). Conclusions: Internal medicine clerkship directors commonly require students to pass standardized or locally developed exams and use test results to make academic decisions. The use of standardized patient examinations has increased significantly and likely reflects a broadening of competency assessment. Our results can serve as a basis for individual programmatic evaluation, for internal medicine and other clerkship directors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)229-235
Number of pages7
JournalTeaching and Learning in Medicine
Volume14
Issue number4
StatePublished - Sep 2002

Fingerprint

Internal Medicine
director
Coroners and Medical Examiners
medicine
examination
Students
medical examiner
Medical Students
Curriculum
Mental Competency
Medicine
student
self-study
Surveys and Questionnaires
medical student

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors' Use of and Opinions about Clerkship Examinations. / Hemmer, Paul A.; Szauter, Karen; Allbritton, T. Andrew; Elnicki, D. Michael.

In: Teaching and Learning in Medicine, Vol. 14, No. 4, 09.2002, p. 229-235.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hemmer, Paul A. ; Szauter, Karen ; Allbritton, T. Andrew ; Elnicki, D. Michael. / Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors' Use of and Opinions about Clerkship Examinations. In: Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2002 ; Vol. 14, No. 4. pp. 229-235.
@article{ad995214031f4429a0d394856d1bfcbd,
title = "Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors' Use of and Opinions about Clerkship Examinations",
abstract = "Background: For years, quantifiable examinations have been a core component of assessing medical student competence during the internal medicine clerkship. Purpose: To determine how internal medicine clerkship directors use and view examinations and how uses of examinations have changed. Methods: In 1999, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted a confidential survey of its 123 institutional members. Results: Survey response rate was 89{\%} (109/123). The National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination was used by 83{\%}, alone (49{\%}) or in combination with a faculty developed examination or a standardized patient examination (34{\%}). Minimum passing scores were required for the subject exam by 80{\%}, for faculty-developed examinations by 65{\%}, and for the standardized patient exam by 63{\%}. Examinations contribute approximately 25{\%} toward a student's final grade. Students with acceptable clerkship performance s but who fail an exam typically retest after self-study. Students who fail a retest receive unsatisfactory grades and require additional medicine experience. Of the clerkship directors who reported using the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination, 45 (50{\%}) provided comments on ways to improve the examination. Comments focused on examination content, reporting results, basing the exam on a published core curriculum, and general administrative issues. Over the past decade, use of the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination has increased (66{\%} to 83{\%}), use of faculty-developed examinations has declined (46{\%} to 27{\%}), and the use of a clerkship standardized patient examination increased sharply (2{\%} to 27{\%}). Conclusions: Internal medicine clerkship directors commonly require students to pass standardized or locally developed exams and use test results to make academic decisions. The use of standardized patient examinations has increased significantly and likely reflects a broadening of competency assessment. Our results can serve as a basis for individual programmatic evaluation, for internal medicine and other clerkship directors.",
author = "Hemmer, {Paul A.} and Karen Szauter and Allbritton, {T. Andrew} and Elnicki, {D. Michael}",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "229--235",
journal = "Teaching and Learning in Medicine",
issn = "1040-1334",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors' Use of and Opinions about Clerkship Examinations

AU - Hemmer, Paul A.

AU - Szauter, Karen

AU - Allbritton, T. Andrew

AU - Elnicki, D. Michael

PY - 2002/9

Y1 - 2002/9

N2 - Background: For years, quantifiable examinations have been a core component of assessing medical student competence during the internal medicine clerkship. Purpose: To determine how internal medicine clerkship directors use and view examinations and how uses of examinations have changed. Methods: In 1999, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted a confidential survey of its 123 institutional members. Results: Survey response rate was 89% (109/123). The National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination was used by 83%, alone (49%) or in combination with a faculty developed examination or a standardized patient examination (34%). Minimum passing scores were required for the subject exam by 80%, for faculty-developed examinations by 65%, and for the standardized patient exam by 63%. Examinations contribute approximately 25% toward a student's final grade. Students with acceptable clerkship performance s but who fail an exam typically retest after self-study. Students who fail a retest receive unsatisfactory grades and require additional medicine experience. Of the clerkship directors who reported using the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination, 45 (50%) provided comments on ways to improve the examination. Comments focused on examination content, reporting results, basing the exam on a published core curriculum, and general administrative issues. Over the past decade, use of the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination has increased (66% to 83%), use of faculty-developed examinations has declined (46% to 27%), and the use of a clerkship standardized patient examination increased sharply (2% to 27%). Conclusions: Internal medicine clerkship directors commonly require students to pass standardized or locally developed exams and use test results to make academic decisions. The use of standardized patient examinations has increased significantly and likely reflects a broadening of competency assessment. Our results can serve as a basis for individual programmatic evaluation, for internal medicine and other clerkship directors.

AB - Background: For years, quantifiable examinations have been a core component of assessing medical student competence during the internal medicine clerkship. Purpose: To determine how internal medicine clerkship directors use and view examinations and how uses of examinations have changed. Methods: In 1999, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine conducted a confidential survey of its 123 institutional members. Results: Survey response rate was 89% (109/123). The National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination was used by 83%, alone (49%) or in combination with a faculty developed examination or a standardized patient examination (34%). Minimum passing scores were required for the subject exam by 80%, for faculty-developed examinations by 65%, and for the standardized patient exam by 63%. Examinations contribute approximately 25% toward a student's final grade. Students with acceptable clerkship performance s but who fail an exam typically retest after self-study. Students who fail a retest receive unsatisfactory grades and require additional medicine experience. Of the clerkship directors who reported using the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination, 45 (50%) provided comments on ways to improve the examination. Comments focused on examination content, reporting results, basing the exam on a published core curriculum, and general administrative issues. Over the past decade, use of the National Board of Medical Examiners subject examination has increased (66% to 83%), use of faculty-developed examinations has declined (46% to 27%), and the use of a clerkship standardized patient examination increased sharply (2% to 27%). Conclusions: Internal medicine clerkship directors commonly require students to pass standardized or locally developed exams and use test results to make academic decisions. The use of standardized patient examinations has increased significantly and likely reflects a broadening of competency assessment. Our results can serve as a basis for individual programmatic evaluation, for internal medicine and other clerkship directors.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036730272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036730272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12395484

AN - SCOPUS:0036730272

VL - 14

SP - 229

EP - 235

JO - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

JF - Teaching and Learning in Medicine

SN - 1040-1334

IS - 4

ER -