Introduction: Since 2011 two online, validated exams for fourth-year emergency medicine (EM) students have been available (National EM M4 Exams). In 2013 the National Board of Medical Examiners offered the Advanced Clinical Examination in Emergency Medicine (EM-ACE). All of these exams are now in widespread use; however, there are no data on how they correlate. This study evaluated the correlation between the EM-ACE exam and the National EM M4 Exams.

Methods: From May 2013 to April 2014 the EM-ACE and one version of the EM M4 exam were administered sequentially to fourth-year EM students at five U.S. medical schools. Data collected included institution, gross and scaled scores and version of the EM M4 exam. We performed Pearson’s correlation and random effects linear regression.

Results: 303 students took the EM-ACE and versions 1 (V1) or 2 (V2) of the EM M4 exams (279 and 24, respectively). The mean percent correct for the exams were as follows: EM-ACE 74.8 (SD-8.83), V1 83.0 (SD-6.41), V2 78.5 (SD-7.70). Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the V1/EM-ACE was 0.51 (0.42 scaled) and for the V2/EM-ACE was 0.59 (0.41 scaled). The coefficient of determination for V1/EM-ACE was 0.72 and for V2/EM-ACE = 0.71 (0.86 and 0.49 for scaled scores). The R-squared values were 0.25 and 0.30 (0.18 and 0.13, scaled), respectively. There was significant cluster effect by institution. 

Conclusion: There was moderate positive correlation of student scores on the EM-ACE exam and the National EM M4 Exams. [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(1):–0.]

N/A

This submission is intended to be a brief educational advance for the CORD/CDEM supplement (there was no drop-down option), which should not require an abstract

Introduction: Clinical assessment of medical students in emergency medicine (EM) clerkships is a highly variable process that presents unique challenges and opportunities. Currently, clerkship directors use institution-specific tools with unproven validity and reliability that may or may not address competencies valued most highly in the EM setting. Standardization of assessment practices and development of a common, valid, specialty-specific tool would benefit EM educators and students. 

Methods: A two-day national consensus conference was held in March 2016 in the Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine (CDEM) track at the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) Academic Assembly in Nashville, TN. The goal of this conference was to standardize assessment practices and to create a national clinical assessment tool for use in EM clerkships across the country. Conference leaders synthesized the literature, articulated major themes and questions pertinent to clinical assessment of students in EM, clarified the issues, and outlined the consensus-building process prior to consensus-building activities. 

Results: The first day of the conference was dedicated to developing consensus on these key themes in clinical assessment. The second day of the conference was dedicated to discussing and voting on proposed domains to be included in the national clinical assessment tool. A modified Delphi process was initiated after the conference to reconcile questions and items that did not reach an a priori level of consensus. 

Conclusion: The final tool, the National Clinical Assessment Tool for Medical Students in Emergency Medicine (NCAT-EM) is presented here.