J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2016;13:27. 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.27.

Procedural aspects of the organization of the comprehensive European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma examination

• Mathysen D
• Ringens PJ
• Midena E
• Klett A
• Sunaric-Mégevand G
• Martinez-Costa R
• Curtin D
• Tassignon
• Aclimandos W
• Creuzot-Garcher C
• Grupcheva

• KMID: 2413776
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.27

Abstract

The comprehensive European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma (EBOD) examination is one of 38 European medical specialty examinations. This review aims at disclosing the specific procedures and content of the EBOD examination. It is a descriptive study summarizing the present organization of the EBOD examination. It is the 3rd largest European postgraduate medical assessment after anaesthesiology and cardiology. The master language is English for the Part 1 written test (knowledge test with 52 modified type X multiple-choice questions) (in the past the written test was also available in French and German). Ophthalmology training of minimum 4 years in a full or associated European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) member state is a prerequisite. Problem-solving skills are tested in the Part 2 oral assessment, which is a viva of 4 subjects conducted in English with support for native language whenever feasible. The comprehensive EBOD examination is one of the leading examinations organized by UEMS European Boards or Specialist Sections from the point of number of examinees, item banking, and item contents.

Keyword

Disclosure; Europe; Language; Ophthalmology; Specialization

MeSH Terms

Cardiology
Disclosure
Europe
European Union
Ophthalmology*
Specialization

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Example of the answer sheet for Part 1 of the comprehensive European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma examination where judgment is needed for each item (items displayed at the top end of the answer sheet) of any multiple-choice question (question numbers displayed at the left side of the answer sheet), whether the statement is true (T), false (F) or they don’t know the answer (D).

Reference

References

1. Kivela T. The first European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma examination in Milan, June 1995: a candidate’s view. Acta Ophthalmol. 1996; 74:98–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.1996.tb00694.x.

2. Mathysen DG, Aclimandos W, Roelant E, Wouters K, Creuzot-Garcher C, Ringens PJ, Hawlina M, Tassignon MJ. History and future of the European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma examination. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013; 91:589–593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02422.x.

3. Boorman J, Mathysen DG, Noel JL, Bloch K, Rouffet JB, Tenore A, Papalois V, Sparrow O, Goldik Z. Survey on European postgraduate medical assessments by the Council for European Medical Specialty Assessments (UEMS-CESMA). MedEdPublish. 2014; 42:1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.15694/mep.2014.003.0042.

4. Mathysen DG, Goldik Z. On quality control and the importance of European postgraduate medical specialty assessments. Med Teach. 2015; 37:886–887. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1016488.

5. Goldik Z; Board of Examiners of European Diploma of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care-ESA. Abandoning negative marking. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008; 25:349–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265021508003876.

6. Mathysen DG. Statistical evaluation of multiple-choice assessments: development and validation of a statistical analysis method to monitor the European ophthalmology exit examination, and evaluation of examination questions and methods. Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen;2014. p. 200.

7. Mathysen DG. Statistical evaluation of multiple-choice assessments: statistical evaluation of the comprehensive European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma (EBOD) examination. Berlin: Lambert Academic Publishing;2014; 200.

8. Mathysen DG, Aclimandos W, Roelant E, Wouters K, Creuzot-Garcher C, Ringens PJ, Hawlina M, Tassignon MJ. Evaluation of adding item-response theory analysis for evaluation of the European Board of Ophthalmology Diploma examination. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013; 91:e573–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.12135.

9. Mathysen DG, Grupcheva C. Do gender and instructions impact the observed level of self-confidence among candidates sitting a postgraduate medical multiple-choice assessment? Acad J Educ Res. 2014; 2:129–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.15413/ajer.2014.0143.

10. Calcagni M. The European board of hand surgery examination. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013; 38:692–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753193413488491.

11. Case SM, Swanson DB. Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. Philadelphia (PA): National Board of Medical Examiners;2002.