Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association logoLink to The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
. 1996 Mar;40(1):19–27.

The reliability and validity of the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board examinations: a nine year longitudinal study (1987-1995) of their psychometric properties

Claudio Violato, Anthony Marini, Douglas Lawson, Murray McEwen
PMCID: PMC2485153

Abstract

Data derived from the administration of the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board (CCEB) examinations for a nine year period, 1987-1995, were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the subject tests: anatomy, chemistry, chiropractic practice, diagnosis and symptomatology, microbiology and public health, neurology, pathology, physiology, and x-ray interpretation and physics. Nearly two-thousand candidates from more than eighteen chiropractic colleges have written the CCEB exams over this nine year period. The results indicate that the exams have adequate alpha reliabilities (.69 to .80) and theoretically appropriate statistical properties and item characteristics. There is also substantial evidence of content validity. Results from stepwise multiple regression and factor analyses provided evidence for the criterion-related and construct validity of the exams. The implication of these results for the continued refinement and development of the CCEB exams, together with suggestions for on-going research of their reliability and validity, are discussed.

Keywords: Board examinations, psychometric analyses, reliability and validity, chiropractic

Full text

PDF
19

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bersky A. K., Yocom C. J. Computerized Clinical Simulation Testing: its use for competence assessment in nursing. Nurs Health Care. 1994 Mar;15(3):120–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cavanaugh S. H. Response to a legal challenge. Five steps to defensible credentialing examinations. Eval Health Prof. 1991 Mar;14(1):13–40. doi: 10.1177/016327879101400102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Elam C. L., Johnson M. M. NBME Part I versus USMLE Step 1: predicting scores based on preadmission and medical school performances. Acad Med. 1994 Feb;69(2):155–155. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199402000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kane M. T., Miller T., Trine M., Becker C., Carson K. The precision of practice analysis results in the professions. Eval Health Prof. 1995 Mar;18(1):29–50. doi: 10.1177/016327879501800103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mennin S. P., Friedman M., Skipper B., Kalishman S., Snyder J. Performances on the NBME I, II, and III by medical students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the University of New Mexico. Acad Med. 1993 Aug;68(8):616–624. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Page G., Bordage G., Allen T. Developing key-feature problems and examinations to assess clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med. 1995 Mar;70(3):194–201. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199503000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Williams R. G. Use of NBME and USMLE examinations to evaluate medical education programs. Acad Med. 1993 Oct;68(10):748–752. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199310000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association are provided here courtesy of The Canadian Chiropractic Association

RESOURCES