The legality and appropriateness of keeping Korean Medical Licensing Examination items confidential: a comparative analysis and review of court rulings

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jae Sun Kim, Dae Un Hong, Ju Yoen Lee
{"title":"The legality and appropriateness of keeping Korean Medical Licensing Examination items confidential: a comparative analysis and review of court rulings","authors":"Jae Sun Kim, Dae Un Hong, Ju Yoen Lee","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines the legality and appropriateness of keeping the multiple-choice question items of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) confidential. Through an analysis of cases from the United States, Canada, and Australia, where medical licensing exams are conducted using item banks and computer-based testing, we found that exam items are kept confidential to ensure fairness and prevent cheating. In Korea, the Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute (KHPLEI) has been disclosing KMLE questions despite concerns over exam integrity. Korean courts have consistently ruled that multiple-choice question items prepared by public institutions are non-public information under Article 9(1)(v) of the Korea Official Information Disclosure Act (KOIDA), which exempts disclosure if it significantly hinders the fairness of exams or research and development. The Constitutional Court of Korea has upheld this provision. Given the time and cost involved in developing high-quality items and the need to accurately assess examinees’ abilities, there are compelling reasons to keep KMLE items confidential. As a public institution responsible for selecting qualified medical practitioners, KHPLEI should establish its disclosure policy based on a balanced assessment of public interest, without influence from specific groups. We conclude that KMLE questions qualify as non-public information under KOIDA, and KHPLEI may choose to maintain their confidentiality to ensure exam fairness and efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"21 ","pages":"28"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11637596/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the legality and appropriateness of keeping the multiple-choice question items of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) confidential. Through an analysis of cases from the United States, Canada, and Australia, where medical licensing exams are conducted using item banks and computer-based testing, we found that exam items are kept confidential to ensure fairness and prevent cheating. In Korea, the Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute (KHPLEI) has been disclosing KMLE questions despite concerns over exam integrity. Korean courts have consistently ruled that multiple-choice question items prepared by public institutions are non-public information under Article 9(1)(v) of the Korea Official Information Disclosure Act (KOIDA), which exempts disclosure if it significantly hinders the fairness of exams or research and development. The Constitutional Court of Korea has upheld this provision. Given the time and cost involved in developing high-quality items and the need to accurately assess examinees’ abilities, there are compelling reasons to keep KMLE items confidential. As a public institution responsible for selecting qualified medical practitioners, KHPLEI should establish its disclosure policy based on a balanced assessment of public interest, without influence from specific groups. We conclude that KMLE questions qualify as non-public information under KOIDA, and KHPLEI may choose to maintain their confidentiality to ensure exam fairness and efficiency.

韩国医疗执照考试项目保密的合法性和适当性:法院裁决的比较分析和回顾。
本研究探讨了对韩国医学执业资格考试(KMLE)的多项选择题项目进行保密的合法性和适当性。通过分析美国、加拿大和澳大利亚的案例(这些国家的医学执业资格考试都使用题库和计算机考试),我们发现,考试题目保密是为了确保公平性和防止作弊。在韩国,韩国卫生人员执业资格考试院(KHPLEI)尽管担心考试的公正性,但一直在公开 KMLE 的试题。根据《韩国官方信息公开法》(KOIDA) 第 9(1)(v)条的规定,公共机构准备的多选题属于非公开信息。韩国宪法法院维持了这一规定。鉴于开发高质量项目所需的时间和成本,以及准确评估考生能力的需要,有充分的理由对 KMLE 项目进行保密。作为负责选拔合格执业医师的公共机构,KHPLEI 应在平衡评估公众利益的基础上制定其披露政策,而不应受到特定群体的影响。我们的结论是,根据 KOIDA 的规定,KMLE 问题属于非公开信息,KHPLEI 可以选择对其保密,以确保考试的公平性和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信