IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v11y2017i3p315-322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The medical licensing examination debate

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Archer
  • Nick Lynn
  • Lee Coombes
  • Martin Roberts
  • Tom Gale
  • Sam Regan de Bere

Abstract

National licensing examinations are typically large‐scale examinations taken early in a career or near the point of graduation, and, importantly, success is required to subsequently be able to practice. They are becoming increasingly popular as a method of quality assurance in the medical workforce, but debate about their contribution to patient safety and the improvement of healthcare outcomes continues. A systematic review of the national licensing examination literature demonstrates that there is disagreement between assessment experts about the strengths and challenges of licensing examinations. This is characterized by a trans‐Atlantic divide between the dominance of psychometric reliability assurance in North America and the wider interpretations of validity, to include consequences, in Europe. We conclude that the debate might benefit from refocusing to what a national licensing examination should assess: to achieve a balance between assessing a breadth of skills and the capacity for such skills in practice, and focusing less on reproducibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Archer & Nick Lynn & Lee Coombes & Martin Roberts & Tom Gale & Sam Regan de Bere, 2017. "The medical licensing examination debate," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 315-322, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:3:p:315-322
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12118
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12118?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:3:p:315-322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.