Abstract
Cardiac auscultation is a critical clinical skill for physicians, but minimum performance standards do not exist. One hundred third-year medical students from three schools completed a case-based computerized examination that assessed their ability to identify 12 major cardiac findings. Cohort performance was reviewed by a panel of expert judges who provided item-based (Angoff method) and group-based (Hofstee method) judgments on two occasions. Judges' ratings were used to calculate a minimum passing standard (MPS) for cardiac auscultation skills. Interrater reliabilities and test-retest reliability (stability) were calculated. Both methods produced reliable and stable data. Use of the Angoff method yielded a more lenient MPS than the Hofstee method. Two thirds of the students (66%) did not achieve the MPS. Use of a defensible standard allows for reliable evaluation of cardiac auscultation skills. Further work is needed to improve the performance of this important clinical skill by medical students.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
