This study examines the legality and appropriateness of keeping the multiple-choice question items of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) confidential. Through an analysis of cases from the United States, Canada, and Australia, where medical licensing exams are conducted using item banks and computer-based testing, we found that exam items are kept confidential to ensure fairness and prevent cheating. In Korea, the Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute (KHPLEI) has been disclosing KMLE questions despite concerns over exam integrity. Korean courts have consistently ruled that multiple-choice question items prepared by public institutions are non-public information under Article 9(1)(v) of the Korea Official Information Disclosure Act (KOIDA), which exempts disclosure if it significantly hinders the fairness of exams or research and development. The Constitutional Court of Korea has upheld this provision. Given the time and cost involved in developing high-quality items and the need to accurately assess examinees’ abilities, there are compelling reasons to keep KMLE items confidential. As a public institution responsible for selecting qualified medical practitioners, KHPLEI should establish its disclosure policy based on a balanced assessment of public interest, without influence from specific groups. We conclude that KMLE questions qualify as non-public information under KOIDA, and KHPLEI may choose to maintain their confidentiality to ensure exam fairness and efficiency.
Purpose Upward feedback is becoming more widely used in medical training as a means of quality control. Multiple biases exist, thus the accuracy of upward feedback is debatable. This study aims to identify factors that could influence upward feedback, especially in medical training. Methods: A systematic review using a structured search strategy was performed. Thirty-five databases were searched. Results were reviewed and relevant abstracts were shortlisted. All studies in English, both medical and non-medical literature, were included. A simple pro-forma was used initially to identify the pertinent areas of upward feedback, so that a focused pro-forma could be designed for data extraction. Results: A total of 204 articles were reviewed. Most studies on upward feedback bias were evaluative studies and only covered Kirkpatrick level 1-reaction. Most studies evaluated trainers or training, were used for formative purposes and presented quantitative data. Accountability and confidentiality were the most common overt biases, whereas method of feedback was the most commonly implied bias within articles. Conclusion: Although different types of bias do exist, upward feedback does have a role in evaluating medical training. Accountability and confidentiality were the most common biases. Further research is required to evaluate which types of bias are associated with specific survey characteristics and which are potentially modifiable.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The impact of prior performance information on subsequent assessment: is there evidence of retaliation in an anonymous multisource assessment system? Bahar Saberzadeh-Ardestani, Ali Reza Sima, Bardia Khosravi, Meredith Young, Sara Mortaz Hejri Advances in Health Sciences Education.2024; 29(2): 531. CrossRef
Launching the ACE Katrina Calvert, Sarah Janssens, Ian Symonds Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.2024; 64(4): 305. CrossRef
Upward Feedback: Exploring Learner Perspectives on Giving Feedback to their Teachers Katherine Wisener, Kimberlee Hart, Erik Driessen, Cary Cuncic, Kiran Veerapen, Kevin Eva Perspectives on Medical Education.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Misperceptions and Missed Opportunities: A Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Evaluating Surgical Teachers Emily A. Flom, Nathan A. Coppersmith, Peter S. Yoo Journal of Surgical Education.2023; 80(11): 1663. CrossRef
Only When They Seek: Exploring Supervisor and Resident Perspectives and Positions on Upward Feedback Subha Ramani, Rachelle C. W. Lee-Krueger, Amanda Roze des Ordons, Jessica Trier, Heather Armson, Karen D. Könings, Jocelyn M. Lockyer Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions.2022; 42(4): 249. CrossRef
Third year medical students impersonalize and hedge when providing negative upward feedback to clinical faculty Doreen M. Olvet, Joanne M. Willey, Jeffrey B. Bird, Jill M. Rabin, R. Ellen Pearlman, Judith Brenner Medical Teacher.2021; 43(6): 700. CrossRef
Faculty Perceptions of Formative Feedback from Medical Students Lynne Robins, Sherilyn Smith, Amanda Kost, Heidi Combs, Patricia A. Kritek, Eileen J. Klein Teaching and Learning in Medicine.2020; 32(2): 168. CrossRef
Surgeons have an opportunity to improve teaching quality through feedback provision Katherine M. Heckman, Renaid B. Kim, Anderson Lee, Emma Chang, Niki Matusko, Rishindra M. Reddy, David T. Hughes, Gurjit Sandhu Journal of Surgical Research.2018; 229: 164. CrossRef