Anesthesiology Resident Performance on the US Medical Licensing Examination Predicts Success on the American Board of Anesthesiology BASIC Staged Examination: An Observational Study

Abstract Introduction Postrotation evaluations are frequently used by residency program directors for early detection of residents with academic difficulties; however, the accuracy of these evaluations in assessing resident performance has been questioned. Methods This retrospective case-control study examines the ability of postrotation evaluation characteristics to predict the need for remediation. We compared the evaluations of 17 residents who were placed on academic warning or probation, from 2000 to 2007, with those for a group of peers matched on sex, postgraduate year (PGY), and entering class. Results The presence of an outlier evaluation, the number of words written in the comments section, and the percentage of evaluations with negative or ambiguous comments were all associated with the need for remediation (P = .01, P = .001, P = .002, P = < .001, respectively). In contrast, United States Medical Licensing Examination step 1 and step 2 scores, total number of evaluations received, and percentage of positive comments on the evaluations were not associated with the need for remediation (P = .06, P = .87, P = .55, respectively). Discussion Despite ambiguous evaluation comments, the length and percentage of ambiguous or negative comments did indicate future need for remediation. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that postrotation evaluation characteristics can be used to identify residents as risk. However, larger prospective studies, encompassing multiple institutions, are needed to validate various evaluation methods in measuring resident performance and to accurately predict the need for remediation.

Download Full-text

What Predicts Performance? A Multicenter Study Examining the Association Between Resident Performance, Rank List Position, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scores

Journal of Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.11.008 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 52 (3) ◽

pp. 332-340 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Jonathan G. Wagner ◽

Todd Schneberk ◽

Marissa Zobrist ◽

H. Gene Hern ◽

Jamie Jordan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Multicenter Study ◽

List Position ◽

Resident Performance ◽

Rank List ◽

Medical Licensing ◽

Licensing Examination

Download Full-text

The US Medical Licensing Examination

International Medical Graduates in the United States ◽

10.1007/978-3-030-62249-7_23 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 371-377

Author(s):

Ivan Cancarevic

Keyword(s):

Medical Licensing ◽

The Us ◽

Licensing Examination

Download Full-text

Numerical Versus Pass/Fail Scoring on the USMLE: What Do Medical Students and Residents Want and Why?

Journal of Graduate Medical Education ◽

10.4300/jgme-d-10-00121.1 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 59-66 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Catherine E Lewis ◽

Jonathan R Hiatt ◽

LuAnn Wilkerson ◽

Areti Tillou ◽

Neil H Parker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Medical Students ◽

Medical Knowledge ◽

Accurate Estimate ◽

Score Distribution ◽

Medical Licensing ◽

The Us ◽

Residency Selection ◽

Licensing Examination ◽

Amount Of Knowledge ◽

Resident Selection

Abstract Background Although the primary purpose of the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is assessment for licensure, USMLE scores often are used for other purposes, more prominently resident selection. The Committee to Evaluate the USMLE Program currently is considering a number of substantial changes, including conversion to pass/fail scoring. Methods A survey was administered to third-year (MS3) and fourth-year (MS4) medical students and residents at a single institution to evaluate opinions regarding pass/fail scoring on the USMLE. Results Response rate was 59% (n = 732 of 1249). Reported score distribution for Step 1 was 30% for <220, 38% for 220–240, and 32% for >240, with no difference between MS3s, MS4s, and residents (P = .89). Score distribution for Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) was similar. Only 26% of respondents agreed that Step 1 should be pass/fail; 38% agreed with pass/fail scoring for Step 2 CK. Numerical scoring on Step 1 was preferred by respondents who: (1) agreed that the examination gave an accurate estimate of knowledge (odds ratio [OR], 4.23; confidence interval [CI], 2.41–7.43; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.0; CI, 1.92–8.33; P < .001); and (3) felt that acquisition of knowledge might decrease if the examination were pass/fail (OR, 10.15; CI, 3.32–31.02; P < .001). For Step 2 CK, numerical scoring was preferred by respondents who: (1) believed they gained a large amount of knowledge preparing for the examination (OR, 2.63; CI, 1.52–4.76; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.76; CI, 2.86–8.33; P < .001); (3) felt that the amount of knowledge acquired might decrease if it were pass/fail (OR, 28.16; CI, 7.31–108.43; P < .001); and (4) believed their Step 2 CK score was important when applying for residency (OR, 2.37; CI, 1.47–3.84; P < .001). Conclusions Students and residents prefer the ongoing use of numerical scoring because they believe that scores are important in residency selection, that residency applicants are advantaged by examination scores, and that scores provide an important impetus to review and solidify medical knowledge.

Download Full-text