Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shea, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Popp, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Shea, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Popp, R. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparison of Video and Print Formats in the Assessment of Skill in Interpreting Cardiovascular Motion Studies

Judy A. Shea

University of Pennsylvania

John J. Norcini

Rebecca A. Baranowski

Lynn O. Langdon

American Board of Internal Medicine

Richard L. Popp

Stanford University

The purpose of the present study is to see if print and video formats of cardiovascular motion studies measured interpretive abilities in the same way. Participants in centers randomly assigned either Form A or B of echocardiograms saw one print and one video subtest. Participants in centers randomly assigned ventriculogram/arteriogram Form A or B saw four subtests: one print and one video for each type of study. Analyses revealed that the video subtests were easier than the print subtests, the print subtests were slightly more reproducible than the video subtests, the disattenuated correlations between print and video subtests of the same type of study were nearly perfect, and with multiple-choice question scores, experience and candidate descriptors were moderate. Given the equivalence of the formats, this study supports the use of the print format in national examinations. But, if resources are available, a video examination could be developed with reasonable psychometric characteristics for local use.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 15, No. 3, 325-340 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879201500305
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?