PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S M Case

Publications and source records attributed to S M Case.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Validity of NBME Part I and Part II scores for selection of residents in orthopaedic surgery, dermatology, and preventive medicine.

This study investigated the relationship between the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Part I and Part II examination scores and subsequent performances on the 1991 certification examinations of the American Boards of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS), Dermatology (ABD), and Preventive Medicine (ABPM). There were significant correlations between scores on all specialty board examinations and all NBME scores, with higher correlations for subscores more closely related to specialty content. Both NBME Part I and NBME Part II were useful predictors; however, the relationships with NBME Part II were generally stronger. Strong relationships were observed between specialty board pass-fail outcomes and NBME scores: examinees whose NBME scores were below 400 were at much greater risk for failing their specialty board examinations.

Achievement↗
PubMed1992

Impact of the USMLE step 1 on teaching and learning of the basic biomedical sciences. United States Medical Licensing Examination.

Medical licensure in the United States is in transition. In June 1991, the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) made major modifications in the content, format, pass/fail standards, and score reports of the NBME Part I examination. This year, Part I became Step 1, the first of three components of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), which will shortly be the sole examination pathway to initial licensure for allopathic physicians. This essay describes Step 1, reviews the phase-in plans for the USMLE, and discusses the potential impact of both on medical schools' teaching and students' learning of the basic biomedical sciences. The authors recommend that medical schools (1) abandon the use of Step 1 as a sole criterion for student promotion to the third year and (2) carefully review other examination-related requirements for promotion and graduation.

Curriculum↗
PubMed1988

Evaluating diagnostic pattern recognition: the psychometric characteristics of a new item format.

The issues related to measuring pattern recognition are similar to measuring other clinical skills; how can testing time be used most efficiently to obtain reliable and valid scores? How should tests be constructed to obtain scores that validly reflect individual performance in making diagnoses? Generalizability analyses indicated that performance in one topic area does not predict performance in other areas very well. For example, students who were relatively expert in diagnosing patients with headaches tend not to be expert in diagnosing patients with chest pain, joint pain, etc. Therefore, to evaluate diagnostic pattern recognition skills in general, it is preferable to sample more presenting complaints with fewer items directed at each one, rather than to sample more items within a small number of presenting complaints. Approximately one hour of testing time would be required to generate a reasonably reliable score (ie, with a generalizability coefficient greater than 0.80). For diagnostic or remedial purposes, performance can be examined by content area to determine specific areas of weakness for individual students. The next phase of this study will be directed at determining whether there are benefits to using the current matching format with a relatively long list of response alternatives rather than a traditional multiple choice format with five choices. It is hypothesized that the shorter list differentially benefits the lower ability students and the more junior students. Efforts will also be directed to determining the applicability of the item format to other content areas such as diagnostic testing and therapy.

Clinical Competence↗