Knowledge Self-Assessment Engagement and Family Medicine Board Examination Outcomes.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Peter M Wingrove, Andrew W Bazemore, Ting Wang, Keith Stelter, David W Price
{"title":"Knowledge Self-Assessment Engagement and Family Medicine Board Examination Outcomes.","authors":"Peter M Wingrove, Andrew W Bazemore, Ting Wang, Keith Stelter, David W Price","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2025.200510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Evidence on the relationship between formative assessment engagement and summative assessment outcomes in practicing physicians is sparse. We evaluated the relationship between engagement in the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) formative Continuous Knowledge Self-Assessment (CKSA) and performance on high-stakes summative assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 24,926 ABFM diplomates who completed CKSA modules and summative assessments between 2017 and 2023. We analyzed CKSA engagement metrics-such as the number of quarters completed, time of completion, and self-reported confidence-against performance on summative assessments, measured by z scores. Multivariable regression models controlled for demographic factors and prior assessment performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall cohort summative assessment pass rate during the study period was 90.3%. Greater CKSA engagement was strongly associated with higher summative assessment performance. Diplomates who completed all four CKSA quarters had significantly higher summative assessment z scores than those completing fewer quarters (P&lt;.001). Early CKSA completion and spending more time on low-confidence questions were also positively correlated with both CKSA and summative assessment scores (P&lt;.001). These effects were observed across different levels of prior exam performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Engagement in formative assessments like CKSA, particularly early and consistent participation and reviewing incorrect or low-confidence questions, is linked to better outcomes on high-stakes assessments. Future research should explore the mechanisms underlying these associations and consider developing an index of engagement to identify physicians at risk of poor performance. Incorporating structured, longitudinal self-assessments like CKSA into certification requirements could enhance continuous learning and improve summative exam readiness.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.200510","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Evidence on the relationship between formative assessment engagement and summative assessment outcomes in practicing physicians is sparse. We evaluated the relationship between engagement in the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) formative Continuous Knowledge Self-Assessment (CKSA) and performance on high-stakes summative assessments.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 24,926 ABFM diplomates who completed CKSA modules and summative assessments between 2017 and 2023. We analyzed CKSA engagement metrics-such as the number of quarters completed, time of completion, and self-reported confidence-against performance on summative assessments, measured by z scores. Multivariable regression models controlled for demographic factors and prior assessment performance.

Results: The overall cohort summative assessment pass rate during the study period was 90.3%. Greater CKSA engagement was strongly associated with higher summative assessment performance. Diplomates who completed all four CKSA quarters had significantly higher summative assessment z scores than those completing fewer quarters (P<.001). Early CKSA completion and spending more time on low-confidence questions were also positively correlated with both CKSA and summative assessment scores (P<.001). These effects were observed across different levels of prior exam performance.

Conclusions: Engagement in formative assessments like CKSA, particularly early and consistent participation and reviewing incorrect or low-confidence questions, is linked to better outcomes on high-stakes assessments. Future research should explore the mechanisms underlying these associations and consider developing an index of engagement to identify physicians at risk of poor performance. Incorporating structured, longitudinal self-assessments like CKSA into certification requirements could enhance continuous learning and improve summative exam readiness.

知识自我评估参与和家庭医学委员会考试结果。
背景和目的:关于执业医师形成性评估参与和总结性评估结果之间关系的证据很少。我们评估了参与美国家庭医学委员会(ABFM)形成性持续知识自我评估(CKSA)与高风险总结性评估绩效之间的关系。方法:这项回顾性队列研究包括24,926名在2017年至2023年间完成CKSA模块和总结性评估的ABFM外交官。我们分析了CKSA参与指标——如完成的季度数、完成的时间和自我报告的信心——与总结性评估的表现(用z分数衡量)。多变量回归模型控制了人口因素和先前的评估绩效。结果:研究期间整体队列总结性评估通过率为90.3%。更大的CKSA参与与更高的总结性评估绩效密切相关。完成所有四个季度CKSA的外交官的总结性评估z分数显著高于完成较少季度的外交官(P<.001)。早完成CKSA和花更多时间在低自信问题上也与CKSA和总结性评估得分呈正相关(P<.001)。这些影响是在不同水平的先前考试成绩中观察到的。结论:参与像CKSA这样的形成性评估,特别是早期和持续的参与和回顾错误或低信心的问题,与高风险评估的更好结果有关。未来的研究应探索这些关联背后的机制,并考虑制定一种敬业度指数,以识别有表现不佳风险的医生。将结构化的纵向自我评估(如CKSA)纳入认证要求可以增强持续学习并提高总结性考试的准备程度。
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
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信