Utility of RAND/UCLA appropriateness method in validating multiple-choice questions on ECG

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to investigate the utility of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) in validating expert consensus-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on electrocardiogram (ECG). Methods According to the RAM user’s manual, nine panelists comprising various experts who routinely handle ECGs were asked to reach a consensus in three phases: a preparatory phase (round 0), an online test phase (round 1), and a face-to-face expert panel meeting (round 2). In round 0, the objectives and future timeline of the study were elucidated to the nine expert panelists with a summary of relevant literature. In round 1, 100 ECG questions prepared by two skilled cardiologists were answered, and the success rate was calculated by dividing the number of correct answers by 9. Furthermore, the questions were stratified into “Appropriate,” “Discussion,” or “Inappropriate” according to the median score and interquartile range (IQR) of appropriateness rating by nine panelists. In round 2, the validity of the 100 ECG questions was discussed in an expert panel meeting according to the results of round 1 and finally reassessed as “Appropriate,” “Candidate,” “Revision,” and “Defer.” Results In round 1 results, the average success rate of the nine experts was 0.89. Using the median score and IQR, 54 questions were classified as “ Discussion.” In the expert panel meeting in round 2, 23% of the original 100 questions was ultimately deemed inappropriate, although they had been prepared by two skilled cardiologists. Most of the 46 questions categorized as “Appropriate” using the median score and IQR in round 1 were considered “Appropriate” even after round 2 (44/46, 95.7%). Conclusions The use of the median score and IQR allowed for a more objective determination of question validity. The RAM may help select appropriate questions, contributing to the preparation of higher-quality tests.