Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
An emphasis upon assessing the quality of assessments primarily in terms of reliability alone can produce a paradoxical and distorted picture, particularly in the situation where a narrower range of candidate ability is an inevitable consequence of being able to take a second part examination only after passing the first part examination. Reliability also shows problems when numbers of candidates in examinations are low and sampling error affects the range of candidate ability. SEM is not subject to such problems; it is therefore a better measure of the quality of an assessment and is recommended for routine use.
Tighe et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: