↓ Skip to main content

Investigating Gender-Related Construct-Irrelevant Components of Scores on the Written Assessment Exercise of a High-Stakes Certification Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, March 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Investigating Gender-Related Construct-Irrelevant Components of Scores on the Written Assessment Exercise of a High-Stakes Certification Assessment
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, March 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10459-004-4297-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

John R. Boulet, Danette W. McKinley

Abstract

The ECFMG Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) was developed to evaluate whether graduates of international medical schools (IMGs) are ready to enter graduate training programs in the United States. The patient note (PN) exercise is specifically used to assess a candidate's ability to summarize and synthesize the data collected in a simulated patient interview. In a 1-year period, over 7700 first time takers completed the CSA, resulting in over 77,000 physician-based performance ratings. An initial pilot study indicated that, based solely on handwriting, the raters were able to correctly classify the gender of the candidate approximately 70% of the time. This result, combined with the fact that the notes are holistically scored, suggests that rating bias is possible. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the gender of the candidate, the gender of the performing standardized patient, and the gender of the rater had any impact on scores. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that there was no significant interaction between candidate and rater gender. Female candidates significantly outperformed males, regardless of rater gender (p < 0.01, effect size = 0.23). The results of this study suggest that, based on rater, SP, and candidate characteristics, the validity of the PN ratings is not compromised.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Social Sciences 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2021.
All research outputs
#15,234,609
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#663
of 849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,323
of 59,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.