Revisiting the relationship between examination pass rate and eligibility pathway among candidates for pharmacist board certification.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists with specialized knowledge and skills are able to seek board certification from the Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS). In 2018, BPS conducted research to evaluate the relationship between eligibility pathways (i.e., completion of a postgraduate year 2 [PGY-2] specialty residency, completion of a postgraduate year 1 [PGY-1] residency plus 2 years of practice experience, or 4 years of practice experience) and certification examination pass rate. The study found statistically significant differences in pass rate based on eligibility criteria across all 6 specialties studied. There was a trend for higher pass rates in cohorts of examinees eligible for board certification based on completion of postgraduate residency training. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare examination pass rates among different eligibility cohorts for board certification in recognized pharmacy practice specialties and compare contemporary findings with previously published findings. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study was conducted on data retrieved from BPS certification applications and examination administration records. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Examinees in the United States and Canada for 9 BPS certification programs. OUTCOME MEASURES: A chi-square analysis was used to identify whether there were differences in pass rate among eligibility pathway cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 14,894 examinees met inclusion criteria; 6312 (42.4%) of the 14,894 examinees analyzed were eligible via practice experience, 5768 (38.7%) were eligible via PGY-1 completion, and 2814 (18.9%) were eligible via PGY-2 completion. A statistically significant difference was found for the relationship between pass rate and eligibility pathway for 8 of 9 BPS certification examinations analyzed (significant: ambulatory care pharmacy, critical care pharmacy, cardiology pharmacy, infectious diseases pharmacy, oncology pharmacy, psychiatric pharmacy, pediatric pharmacy, pharmacotherapy; not significant: solid organ transplantation pharmacy). Post hoc analyses showed that, in most cases, the PGY-2 eligibility cohort outperformed the PGY-1 eligibility cohort, which in turn outperformed the practice experience pathway cohort. CONCLUSION: Analysis of contemporary BPS certification examination administration data yields statistically significant differences among the pass rates by eligibility pathway, replicating previous findings and expanding the scope of the analysis.

Evidence-based medicine and contemporary certification: Analysis of the American Board of Vascular Medicine endovascular board examination.

Since 2005, the American Board of Vascular Medicine (ABVM) endovascular examination has been used to certify vascular practitioners. Annual rigorous review has confirmed it is psychometrically valid and reliable. However, the evidence basis underlying the examination items has not been studied systematically. The aim of this study was to adjudicate class of recommendation (COR) and level of evidence (LOE) for the 2015 ABVM endovascular examination and establish an additional feedback mechanism for examination improvement based on contemporary evidence-based guidelines. We performed a pooled consensus process to classify each of the 110 items in the 2015 ABVM endovascular examination by COR and LOE as detailed in the current guideline statements. We added additional categories for items that were not eligible for assignment using traditional current evidence-based metrics: 'COR X', cannot be determined, not applicable, or simple recognition; and 'LOE X', cannot be determined or not applicable. COR classifications were assigned in the following proportion: Class I=15%, Class II=40%, Class III=3%, COR X=42%. LOE classifications were assigned in the following proportion: Level A=12%, Level B=34%, Level C=32%, LOE X=22%. Our analysis showed that nearly half of the 2015 ABVM endovascular examination items were supported by strong scientific evidence or fact-based knowledge. COR and LOE analysis yielded notably different results. Use of alternate classification schema may be powerful tools for improving certification exams in healthcare.

Endovascular medicine certification 2005-2014: report from the American Board of Vascular Medicine.

This report describes the methods used to develop and maintain the endovascular medicine certification examination, which has been offered by the American Board of Vascular Medicine (ABVM) to practicing physicians since 2005. The report covers the methods and findings used to develop examination specifications which ensure the content and construct validity of the examination assessment such that the examination is reflective of the job tasks associated with the endovascular medicine specialty, as well as being a meaningful indicator of whether a candidate possesses the knowledge and skills necessary for competent practice. Further, this report covers the procedures used to develop, maintain, and administer the examination, including a summary of the content review process and the use of statistical information. Based on psychometric evaluation of the examination's performance, the ABVM's endovascular medicine examination appears to be a valid assessment of professional competency in the specialty area; a finding that supports the inference that candidates who pass the examination are qualified to practice in a manner that protects patients.