Improving the National Board of Medical Examiners Internal Medicine Subject Exam for Use in Clerkship Evaluation
OBJECTIVE: To provide a consensus opinion on modifying the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Medicine Subject Exam (Shelf) to: 1) reflect the internal medicine clerkship curriculum, developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2002-06, Vol.17 (6), p.435-440 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 440 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 435 |
| container_title | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Elnicki, D. Michael Lescisin, Dianne A. Case, Susan |
| description | OBJECTIVE: To provide a consensus opinion on modifying the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Medicine Subject Exam (Shelf) to: 1) reflect the internal medicine clerkship curriculum, developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM); 2) emphasize knowledge important for a clerkship student; and 3) obtain feedback about students' performances on the Shelf.
DESIGN: Two‐round Delphi technique.
PARTICIPANTS: The CDIM Research and Evaluation Committee and CDIM members on NBME Step 2 Committees.
MEASUREMENTS: Using 1–5 Likert scales (5 = highest ratings), the group rated test question content for relevance to the SGIM–CDIM Curriculum Guide and importance for clerkship students' knowledge. The Shelf content is organized into 4 physician tasks and into 11 sections that are generally organ system based. Each iteration of the Shelf has 100 questions. Participants indicated a desired distribution of questions by physician task and section, topics critical for inclusion on each exam, and new topics to include. They specified the types of feedback clerkship directors desired on students' performances. Following the first round, participants viewed pooled results prior to submitting their second‐round responses.
RESULTS: Of 15 individuals contacted, 12 (80%) participated in each round. The desired distribution by physician task was: diagnosis (43), treatment (23), mechanism of disease (20), and health maintenance (15). The sections with the most questions requested were the cardiovascular (17), respiratory (15), and gastroenterology (12) sections. The fewest were requested in aging/ethics (4) and neurology, dermatology, and immunology (5 each). Examples of low‐rated content were Wilson's Disease, chancroid and tracheal rupture (all |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10673.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1495056</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71939145</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5283-2e4c0bf21a200dda978df0f10b5ec0eeb447dc4b23bc99703379197813bc1c463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EokvhLyALid6y-HPtXJBgtZRFBQ5tz5bjOF2HJA52st3-e5x01RZOnGzPPPN6Zl4AIEZLjNjqQ73EnPAMs1wsCUIkRVeCLg_PwOIh8RwskJQsk4KyE_AqxhohTAmRL8EJJphSzMUC9Nu2D37vuhs47Cz8oQfnO93Az16HEvoKfrelMymwOejWdTZEuO0GGyZmTqUYvByL2pphZmDlA7yOFroOrhsbfsWd6-Fmr5tx1n4NXlS6ifbN8TwF1182V-uv2cXP8-3600VmOJE0I5YZVFQE6zRfWepcyLJCFUYFtwZZWzAmSsMKQguT5wJRKnKcIJze2LAVPQUf73X7sWhtaWw3BN2oPrhWhzvltVN_Zzq3Uzd-r9LuOOKTwNlRIPjfo42Dal00tml0Z_0YlcA5zTHjCXz3D1j7cVpQVFJwKVcSyQTJe8gEH2Ow1UMnGKnJU1Wrybrpe6EmT9XsqTqk0rdPJ3ksPJqYgPdHQMdkVRV0Z1x85KjguaRPVnLrGnv33w2ob-fb-Ur_AEADvjQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>875886808</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Improving the National Board of Medical Examiners Internal Medicine Subject Exam for Use in Clerkship Evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Elnicki, D. Michael ; Lescisin, Dianne A. ; Case, Susan</creator><creatorcontrib>Elnicki, D. Michael ; Lescisin, Dianne A. ; Case, Susan</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE: To provide a consensus opinion on modifying the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Medicine Subject Exam (Shelf) to: 1) reflect the internal medicine clerkship curriculum, developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM); 2) emphasize knowledge important for a clerkship student; and 3) obtain feedback about students' performances on the Shelf.
DESIGN: Two‐round Delphi technique.
PARTICIPANTS: The CDIM Research and Evaluation Committee and CDIM members on NBME Step 2 Committees.
MEASUREMENTS: Using 1–5 Likert scales (5 = highest ratings), the group rated test question content for relevance to the SGIM–CDIM Curriculum Guide and importance for clerkship students' knowledge. The Shelf content is organized into 4 physician tasks and into 11 sections that are generally organ system based. Each iteration of the Shelf has 100 questions. Participants indicated a desired distribution of questions by physician task and section, topics critical for inclusion on each exam, and new topics to include. They specified the types of feedback clerkship directors desired on students' performances. Following the first round, participants viewed pooled results prior to submitting their second‐round responses.
RESULTS: Of 15 individuals contacted, 12 (80%) participated in each round. The desired distribution by physician task was: diagnosis (43), treatment (23), mechanism of disease (20), and health maintenance (15). The sections with the most questions requested were the cardiovascular (17), respiratory (15), and gastroenterology (12) sections. The fewest were requested in aging/ethics (4) and neurology, dermatology, and immunology (5 each). Examples of low‐rated content were Wilson's Disease, chancroid and tracheal rupture (all <2.0). Health maintenance in type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease all received 5.0 ratings. Participants desired feedback by: section (4.6) and physician task (3.9), on performances of the entire class (4.0), and for individual students (3.8).
Conclusion: Clerkship directors identified test content that was relevant to the curricular content and important for clerkship students to know, and they indicated a desired question distribution. They would most like feedback on their students' performance by organ system–based sections for the complete academic year. This collaborative effort could serve as a model for aligning national exams with course goals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10673.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12133157</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston, MA, USA: Blackwell Science Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; clinical clerkship ; Clinical Clerkship - standards ; clinical competance ; Collaboration ; Core curriculum ; Coroners and Medical Examiners - education ; Coroners and Medical Examiners - standards ; Curriculum - standards ; Decision Making ; Delphi method ; Delphi Technique ; Directors ; Disease ; Educational Measurement - standards ; Feedback ; Humans ; Internal medicine ; Internal Medicine - education ; Internal Medicine - standards ; Keywords ; Medical examiners ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Original ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Reproducibility of Results ; Societies, Medical - standards ; student evaluation ; Students ; Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation ; Thoracic surgery ; undergraduate education ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2002-06, Vol.17 (6), p.435-440</ispartof><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine 2002</rights><rights>2002 by the Society of General Internal Medicine 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5283-2e4c0bf21a200dda978df0f10b5ec0eeb447dc4b23bc99703379197813bc1c463</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5283-2e4c0bf21a200dda978df0f10b5ec0eeb447dc4b23bc99703379197813bc1c463</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495056/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495056/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=13759836$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133157$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Elnicki, D. Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lescisin, Dianne A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Case, Susan</creatorcontrib><title>Improving the National Board of Medical Examiners Internal Medicine Subject Exam for Use in Clerkship Evaluation</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE: To provide a consensus opinion on modifying the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Medicine Subject Exam (Shelf) to: 1) reflect the internal medicine clerkship curriculum, developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM); 2) emphasize knowledge important for a clerkship student; and 3) obtain feedback about students' performances on the Shelf.
DESIGN: Two‐round Delphi technique.
PARTICIPANTS: The CDIM Research and Evaluation Committee and CDIM members on NBME Step 2 Committees.
MEASUREMENTS: Using 1–5 Likert scales (5 = highest ratings), the group rated test question content for relevance to the SGIM–CDIM Curriculum Guide and importance for clerkship students' knowledge. The Shelf content is organized into 4 physician tasks and into 11 sections that are generally organ system based. Each iteration of the Shelf has 100 questions. Participants indicated a desired distribution of questions by physician task and section, topics critical for inclusion on each exam, and new topics to include. They specified the types of feedback clerkship directors desired on students' performances. Following the first round, participants viewed pooled results prior to submitting their second‐round responses.
RESULTS: Of 15 individuals contacted, 12 (80%) participated in each round. The desired distribution by physician task was: diagnosis (43), treatment (23), mechanism of disease (20), and health maintenance (15). The sections with the most questions requested were the cardiovascular (17), respiratory (15), and gastroenterology (12) sections. The fewest were requested in aging/ethics (4) and neurology, dermatology, and immunology (5 each). Examples of low‐rated content were Wilson's Disease, chancroid and tracheal rupture (all <2.0). Health maintenance in type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease all received 5.0 ratings. Participants desired feedback by: section (4.6) and physician task (3.9), on performances of the entire class (4.0), and for individual students (3.8).
Conclusion: Clerkship directors identified test content that was relevant to the curricular content and important for clerkship students to know, and they indicated a desired question distribution. They would most like feedback on their students' performance by organ system–based sections for the complete academic year. This collaborative effort could serve as a model for aligning national exams with course goals.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>clinical clerkship</subject><subject>Clinical Clerkship - standards</subject><subject>clinical competance</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Core curriculum</subject><subject>Coroners and Medical Examiners - education</subject><subject>Coroners and Medical Examiners - standards</subject><subject>Curriculum - standards</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Delphi method</subject><subject>Delphi Technique</subject><subject>Directors</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Educational Measurement - standards</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal medicine</subject><subject>Internal Medicine - education</subject><subject>Internal Medicine - standards</subject><subject>Keywords</subject><subject>Medical examiners</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Societies, Medical - standards</subject><subject>student evaluation</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation</subject><subject>Thoracic surgery</subject><subject>undergraduate education</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EokvhLyALid6y-HPtXJBgtZRFBQ5tz5bjOF2HJA52st3-e5x01RZOnGzPPPN6Zl4AIEZLjNjqQ73EnPAMs1wsCUIkRVeCLg_PwOIh8RwskJQsk4KyE_AqxhohTAmRL8EJJphSzMUC9Nu2D37vuhs47Cz8oQfnO93Az16HEvoKfrelMymwOejWdTZEuO0GGyZmTqUYvByL2pphZmDlA7yOFroOrhsbfsWd6-Fmr5tx1n4NXlS6ifbN8TwF1182V-uv2cXP8-3600VmOJE0I5YZVFQE6zRfWepcyLJCFUYFtwZZWzAmSsMKQguT5wJRKnKcIJze2LAVPQUf73X7sWhtaWw3BN2oPrhWhzvltVN_Zzq3Uzd-r9LuOOKTwNlRIPjfo42Dal00tml0Z_0YlcA5zTHjCXz3D1j7cVpQVFJwKVcSyQTJe8gEH2Ow1UMnGKnJU1Wrybrpe6EmT9XsqTqk0rdPJ3ksPJqYgPdHQMdkVRV0Z1x85KjguaRPVnLrGnv33w2ob-fb-Ur_AEADvjQ</recordid><startdate>200206</startdate><enddate>200206</enddate><creator>Elnicki, D. Michael</creator><creator>Lescisin, Dianne A.</creator><creator>Case, Susan</creator><general>Blackwell Science Inc</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200206</creationdate><title>Improving the National Board of Medical Examiners Internal Medicine Subject Exam for Use in Clerkship Evaluation</title><author>Elnicki, D. Michael ; Lescisin, Dianne A. ; Case, Susan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5283-2e4c0bf21a200dda978df0f10b5ec0eeb447dc4b23bc99703379197813bc1c463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>clinical clerkship</topic><topic>Clinical Clerkship - standards</topic><topic>clinical competance</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Core curriculum</topic><topic>Coroners and Medical Examiners - education</topic><topic>Coroners and Medical Examiners - standards</topic><topic>Curriculum - standards</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Delphi method</topic><topic>Delphi Technique</topic><topic>Directors</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Educational Measurement - standards</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal medicine</topic><topic>Internal Medicine - education</topic><topic>Internal Medicine - standards</topic><topic>Keywords</topic><topic>Medical examiners</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Societies, Medical - standards</topic><topic>student evaluation</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation</topic><topic>Thoracic surgery</topic><topic>undergraduate education</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Elnicki, D. Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lescisin, Dianne A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Case, Susan</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Elnicki, D. Michael</au><au>Lescisin, Dianne A.</au><au>Case, Susan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Improving the National Board of Medical Examiners Internal Medicine Subject Exam for Use in Clerkship Evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>2002-06</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>435</spage><epage>440</epage><pages>435-440</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVE: To provide a consensus opinion on modifying the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Medicine Subject Exam (Shelf) to: 1) reflect the internal medicine clerkship curriculum, developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM); 2) emphasize knowledge important for a clerkship student; and 3) obtain feedback about students' performances on the Shelf.
DESIGN: Two‐round Delphi technique.
PARTICIPANTS: The CDIM Research and Evaluation Committee and CDIM members on NBME Step 2 Committees.
MEASUREMENTS: Using 1–5 Likert scales (5 = highest ratings), the group rated test question content for relevance to the SGIM–CDIM Curriculum Guide and importance for clerkship students' knowledge. The Shelf content is organized into 4 physician tasks and into 11 sections that are generally organ system based. Each iteration of the Shelf has 100 questions. Participants indicated a desired distribution of questions by physician task and section, topics critical for inclusion on each exam, and new topics to include. They specified the types of feedback clerkship directors desired on students' performances. Following the first round, participants viewed pooled results prior to submitting their second‐round responses.
RESULTS: Of 15 individuals contacted, 12 (80%) participated in each round. The desired distribution by physician task was: diagnosis (43), treatment (23), mechanism of disease (20), and health maintenance (15). The sections with the most questions requested were the cardiovascular (17), respiratory (15), and gastroenterology (12) sections. The fewest were requested in aging/ethics (4) and neurology, dermatology, and immunology (5 each). Examples of low‐rated content were Wilson's Disease, chancroid and tracheal rupture (all <2.0). Health maintenance in type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease all received 5.0 ratings. Participants desired feedback by: section (4.6) and physician task (3.9), on performances of the entire class (4.0), and for individual students (3.8).
Conclusion: Clerkship directors identified test content that was relevant to the curricular content and important for clerkship students to know, and they indicated a desired question distribution. They would most like feedback on their students' performance by organ system–based sections for the complete academic year. This collaborative effort could serve as a model for aligning national exams with course goals.</abstract><cop>Boston, MA, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Inc</pub><pmid>12133157</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10673.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0884-8734 |
| ispartof | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2002-06, Vol.17 (6), p.435-440 |
| issn | 0884-8734 1525-1497 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1495056 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences clinical clerkship Clinical Clerkship - standards clinical competance Collaboration Core curriculum Coroners and Medical Examiners - education Coroners and Medical Examiners - standards Curriculum - standards Decision Making Delphi method Delphi Technique Directors Disease Educational Measurement - standards Feedback Humans Internal medicine Internal Medicine - education Internal Medicine - standards Keywords Medical examiners Medical sciences Medicine Original Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Reproducibility of Results Societies, Medical - standards student evaluation Students Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation Thoracic surgery undergraduate education United States |
| title | Improving the National Board of Medical Examiners Internal Medicine Subject Exam for Use in Clerkship Evaluation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T08%3A46%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Improving%20the%20National%20Board%20of%20Medical%20Examiners%20Internal%20Medicine%20Subject%20Exam%20for%20Use%20in%20Clerkship%20Evaluation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=Elnicki,%20D.%20Michael&rft.date=2002-06&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=435&rft.epage=440&rft.pages=435-440&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10673.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E71939145%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=875886808&rft_id=info:pmid/12133157&rfr_iscdi=true |