Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Impact of One Versus Two Content-Specific Modules on American Board of Family Medicine Certification Examination Scores

Thomas R. O'Neill and Michael R. Peabody
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2017, 30 (1) 85-90; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.01.160171
Thomas R. O'Neill
From the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael R. Peabody
From the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Density scatterplot of each examinee's actual score using both modules with their better score.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 2.

    Inverse cumulative frequency distributions showing the potential pass rates using examinees' actual 2-module scores, better module scores, and worse module scores. The vertical line represents the current minimum passing standard (380).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Mean Scores and Pass Rates across 3 Conditions and 4 Administrations

    AdministrationNMean (SD) of the SamplePass (%)
    WorseActualBetterWorseActualBetter
    April 201410,618499.0 (108.1)*507.1 (108.3)512.6 (109.3)†87.389.089.9
    November 20144,802462.9 (109.1)*471.9 (109.6)476.8 (110.6)†76.779.581.1
    April 20159,605491.9 (105.4)*499.9 (105.8)505.6 (105.9)†85.487.188.2
    November 20154,063446.1 (108.2)*454.2 (108.9)459.0 (109.1)†71.374.476.0
    Total29,088483.3 (109.2)491.5 (109.5)496.9 (109.5)82.784.886.0
    • ↵* Statistically significantly lower than the actual condition (P < .000, 2-tailed).

    • ↵† Statistically significantly higher than the actual condition ( P < .000, 2-tailed).

    • SD, standard deviation.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Comparison of Pass/Fail Results

    ActualBetterTotal
    PassFail
    Pass24,54911424,663
    Fail4673,9584,425
    Total25,0164,07229,088
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Counts and Percentages of Examinees Selecting Each Module

    ModuleApril 2014 (n = 10,618)November 2014 (n = 4,802)April 2015 (n = 9,605)November 2015 (n = 4,063)Total (N = 29,088)
    Geriatrics3,814 (36%)1,835 (38%)3,258 (34%)1,529 (38%)10,436 (36%)
    Emergent/urgent care1,757 (17%)1,065 (22%)1,590 (17%)899 (22%)5,311 (18%)
    Ambulatory family medicine8,794 (83%)3,876 (81%)7,834 (82%)3,325 (82%)23,829 (82%)
    Child and adolescent care768 (7%)406 (8%)621 (6%)347 (9%)2,142 (7%)
    Women's health2,055 (19%)977 (20%)1,948 (20%)914 (22%)5,894 (20%)
    Maternity Care2,022 (19%)612 (13%)2,056 (21%)439 (11%)5,129 (18%)
    Hospital medicine1,286 (12%)465 (10%)1,278 (13%)374 (9%)3,403 (12%)
    Sports medicine740 (7%)368 (8%)625 (7%)299 (7%)2,032 (7%)
    Total21,236 (200%)9,604 (200%)19,210 (200%)8,126 (200%)58,176 (200%)
    • The percentages are the observed counts of examinees who selected the module divided by the total number of examinees in the study (N = 29,088). Because examinees select 2 modules, the counts sum to 58,176 and the percentages sum to 200%.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 30 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 30, Issue 1
January-February 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of One Versus Two Content-Specific Modules on American Board of Family Medicine Certification Examination Scores
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
11 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of One Versus Two Content-Specific Modules on American Board of Family Medicine Certification Examination Scores
Thomas R. O'Neill, Michael R. Peabody
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2017, 30 (1) 85-90; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.01.160171

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Impact of One Versus Two Content-Specific Modules on American Board of Family Medicine Certification Examination Scores
Thomas R. O'Neill, Michael R. Peabody
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2017, 30 (1) 85-90; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.01.160171
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The American Board of Family Medicine's 8 Years of Experience with Differential Item Functioning
  • A Message from the President
  • Practice Innovation for Care Integration, Opioid Management, and Quality Measurement in Family Medicine
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Clinical Competence
  • Educational Measurement

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire