TY - JOUR

T1 - Development and Validation of a Theoretical Test in Endosonography for Pulmonary Diseases

AU - Savran, Mona M

AU - Clementsen, Paul Frost

AU - Annema, Jouke T

AU - Minddal, Valentina

AU - Larsen, Klaus R

AU - Park, Yoon Soo

AU - Konge, Lars

N1 - © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - BACKGROUND: Theoretical testing provides the necessary foundation to perform technical skills. Additionally, testing improves the retention of knowledge.OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a multiple-choice test in endosonography for pulmonary diseases and to gather validity evidence for this test.METHODS: Initially, 78 questions were constructed after informal conversational interviews with 4 international experts in endosonography. The clarity and content validity of the questions were tested using a Delphi-like approach. Construct validity was explored by administering the test to 3 groups with different levels of endosonography experience: 27 medical students, 18 respiratory physicians with limited endosonography experience, and 14 experts in endosonography.RESULTS: Two Delphi iterations reduced the test to 52 questions. After item analysis, the final test consisted of 46 questions with a mean item discrimination of 0.47 and a mean item difficulty of 0.63. The internal consistency reliability was calculated at 0.91. The 3 groups performed significantly differently (ANOVA: p < 0.001), and post hoc tests were significant. The experts performed significantly more consistently than the novices (p = 0.037) and the intermediates (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a theoretical test in endosonography consisting of multiple-choice questions. Validity evidence was gathered, and the test demonstrated content and construct validity.

AB - BACKGROUND: Theoretical testing provides the necessary foundation to perform technical skills. Additionally, testing improves the retention of knowledge.OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a multiple-choice test in endosonography for pulmonary diseases and to gather validity evidence for this test.METHODS: Initially, 78 questions were constructed after informal conversational interviews with 4 international experts in endosonography. The clarity and content validity of the questions were tested using a Delphi-like approach. Construct validity was explored by administering the test to 3 groups with different levels of endosonography experience: 27 medical students, 18 respiratory physicians with limited endosonography experience, and 14 experts in endosonography.RESULTS: Two Delphi iterations reduced the test to 52 questions. After item analysis, the final test consisted of 46 questions with a mean item discrimination of 0.47 and a mean item difficulty of 0.63. The internal consistency reliability was calculated at 0.91. The 3 groups performed significantly differently (ANOVA: p < 0.001), and post hoc tests were significant. The experts performed significantly more consistently than the novices (p = 0.037) and the intermediates (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a theoretical test in endosonography consisting of multiple-choice questions. Validity evidence was gathered, and the test demonstrated content and construct validity.

KW - Clinical Competence

KW - Diagnostic Techniques, Respiratory System

KW - Educational Measurement

KW - Endosonography

KW - Humans

KW - Lung Diseases

KW - Reproducibility of Results

U2 - 10.1159/000362884

DO - 10.1159/000362884

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24853171

VL - 88

SP - 67

EP - 73

JO - Respiration

JF - Respiration

SN - 0025-7931

IS - 1

ER -