Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 626–629 | Cite as

Measuring Continuing Medical Education Outcomes: A Pilot Study of Effect Size of Three CME Interventions at an SGIM Annual Meeting

  • Saul J. WeinerEmail author
  • Jeffrey L. Jackson
  • Sarajane Garten
Brief Report



The ACCME is phasing in new criteria for accreditation from 2008 to 2012. These criteria require CME providers to assess the impact of their interventions.


To assess the feasibility of measuring outcomes at a national meeting, the SGIM evaluation committee conducted a pilot assessment of two workshops and one precourse.


Session coordinators prepared a five-item questionnaire to assess the knowledge and confidence of participants. The questionnaire was administered pre, immediately post, and 9 months after the educational sessions.


Changes in performance were calculated as a standardized difference, or effect size.


All three sessions demonstrated initial knowledge acquisition with effect sizes ranging from 0.39 (small) to 0.99 (large) immediately after the sessions. One session demonstrated sustainment of knowledge over the subsequent 9 months while the other two demonstrated decay. Confidence levels decreased following one of the sessions with an effect size of −0.72 (modest effect).


Effect size measurement of sessions provides quantitative information about their impact on learning and is one way to achieve ACCME compliance. The method, however, poses methodological and logistical challenges that raise questions about the feasibility of tracking learning and retention following a national meeting.


CME accreditation practice performance continuum of medical education quality and improvements in health care 



This research is supported by the Veterans Administration HSR&D Service, Center for Management of Complex Chronic Care, Center of Excellence, Illinois.

Conflict of Interest Statement

None disclosed.


  1. 1.
    See “CME as a Bridge to Quality: Updated Accreditation Criteria,” Sept 2006, available at Last accessed August 2008
  2. 2.
    Regnier K, Kopelow M, Lane D, Alden E. Accreditation for learning and change: quality and improvement as the outcome. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2005;25(3):174–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–S189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kopelow M. Letter from the CEO of ACCME. Accreditation for Learning and Changes. Last accessed August 2008.
  5. 5.
    Moore DE. A framework for outcomes evaluation in the continuing professional development of physicians. In: Davis D, Barnes BE, Fox R, eds. The Continuing Professional Development of Physicians: From Research to Practice. Chicago, IL: AMA Press; 2003:249–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saul J. Weiner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeffrey L. Jackson
    • 2
  • Sarajane Garten
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Department of PediatricsUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, and the Veterans Affairs Center for Management of Complex Chronic CareChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Uniformed Services University of the Health SciencesBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Society of General Internal MedicineWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations