A Comparison of Video and Print Formats in the Assessment of Skill in Interpreting Cardiovascular Motion Studies

The purpose of the present study is to see if print and video formats of cardiovascular motion studies measured interpretive abilities in the same way. Participants in centers randomly assigned either Form A or B of echocardiograms saw one print and one video subtest. Participants in centers randomly assigned ventriculogram/arteriogram Form A or B saw four subtests: one print and one video for each type of study. Analyses revealed that the video subtests were easier than the print subtests, the print subtests were slightly more reproducible than the video subtests, the disattenuated correlations between print and video subtests of the same type of study were nearly perfect, and with multiple-choice question scores, experience and candidate descriptors were moderate. Given the equivalence of the formats, this study supports the use of the print format in national examinations. But, if resources are available, a video examination could be developed with reasonable psychometric characteristics for local use.