Evaluating the impact of pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scoring on pathology residency selection

IF 1.2 Q3 PATHOLOGY Academic Pathology Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.acpath.2023.100083
Ayaka Fujihashi BS , Lydia C. Yang BS , William Haynes BS , Om U. Patel BS , Kaitlin Burge BA , Ishant Yadav BS , Nicholas Van Wagoner MD, PhD , Brandi McCleskey MD
{"title":"Evaluating the impact of pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scoring on pathology residency selection","authors":"Ayaka Fujihashi BS ,&nbsp;Lydia C. Yang BS ,&nbsp;William Haynes BS ,&nbsp;Om U. Patel BS ,&nbsp;Kaitlin Burge BA ,&nbsp;Ishant Yadav BS ,&nbsp;Nicholas Van Wagoner MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Brandi McCleskey MD","doi":"10.1016/j.acpath.2023.100083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Beginning 26 January 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 changed from a numerical score to Pass/Fail. Historically, residency programs have used Step 1 scores as a valuable metric in assessing the competitiveness of applicants. We assessed how residency program criteria will change when evaluating applicants after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. A survey was distributed to the program directors of all 144 pathology residency programs accredited by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Survey questions evaluated the importance of using Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores when assessing applicants. Participants were asked to rank a list of applicant criteria used before and after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. Data were analyzed using chi-squared and paired <em>t</em>-tests with significance at <em>P</em> &lt; 0.05. A total of 34 residency program directors (23.6%) responded to the survey. 76.5% (<em>P</em>&lt; 0.001) of responders believed Step 1 scores were able to predict a resident's ability to pass their board exams, while 41.2% believed Step 2 CK could predict a resident's ability to pass board exams and perform clinically in pathology (<em>P</em> = 0.282). 61.8% of responders agreed that an applicant's medical school ranking would become more important (<em>P</em> = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the relative importance of 16 selection criteria after the change of Step 1 to Pass/Fail. It does not appear that Step 2 CK will become more important. Although results are constrained by a 23.6% response rate, it can be a start to guiding future students through residency applications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44927,"journal":{"name":"Academic Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164826/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2374289523000155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Beginning 26 January 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 changed from a numerical score to Pass/Fail. Historically, residency programs have used Step 1 scores as a valuable metric in assessing the competitiveness of applicants. We assessed how residency program criteria will change when evaluating applicants after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. A survey was distributed to the program directors of all 144 pathology residency programs accredited by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Survey questions evaluated the importance of using Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores when assessing applicants. Participants were asked to rank a list of applicant criteria used before and after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. Data were analyzed using chi-squared and paired t-tests with significance at P < 0.05. A total of 34 residency program directors (23.6%) responded to the survey. 76.5% (P< 0.001) of responders believed Step 1 scores were able to predict a resident's ability to pass their board exams, while 41.2% believed Step 2 CK could predict a resident's ability to pass board exams and perform clinically in pathology (P = 0.282). 61.8% of responders agreed that an applicant's medical school ranking would become more important (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the relative importance of 16 selection criteria after the change of Step 1 to Pass/Fail. It does not appear that Step 2 CK will become more important. Although results are constrained by a 23.6% response rate, it can be a start to guiding future students through residency applications.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估通过/不通过美国医疗执照考试第1步评分对病理学住院医师选择的影响
从2022年1月26日开始,美国医学执照考试第1步从数字分数改为通过/不通过。从历史上看,实习项目一直将第一步的分数作为评估申请人竞争力的一个有价值的指标。我们评估了在第1步通过/不通过后评估申请人时,居住计划标准将如何变化。研究生医学教育认证委员会向所有144个病理学住院项目的项目负责人分发了一份调查报告。调查问题评估了在评估申请人时使用步骤1和步骤2临床知识(CK)分数的重要性。参与者被要求对步骤1成为通过/不通过之前和之后使用的申请人标准列表进行排名。使用卡方检验和配对t检验对数据进行分析,显著性为P<;0.05。共有34名实习项目负责人(23.6%)对调查做出了回应。76.5%(P<;0.001)的应答者认为步骤1的分数能够预测居民通过他们的委员会考试的能力,41.2%的人认为第2步CK可以预测住院医师通过委员会考试和在病理学临床上表现的能力(P=0.282)。61.8%的应答者认为申请人的医学院排名会变得更重要(P=0.001)。在第1步改为通过/不通过后,16个选择标准的相对重要性没有显著差异。步骤2 CK似乎不会变得更加重要。尽管成绩受到23.6%的回复率的限制,但这可能是指导未来学生申请居留权的一个开始。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Pathology
Academic Pathology PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Pathology is an open access journal sponsored by the Association of Pathology Chairs, established to give voice to the innovations in leadership and management of academic departments of Pathology. These innovations may have impact across the breadth of pathology and laboratory medicine practice. Academic Pathology addresses methods for improving patient care (clinical informatics, genomic testing and data management, lab automation, electronic health record integration, and annotate biorepositories); best practices in inter-professional clinical partnerships; innovative pedagogical approaches to medical education and educational program evaluation in pathology; models for training academic pathologists and advancing academic career development; administrative and organizational models supporting the discipline; and leadership development in academic medical centers, health systems, and other relevant venues. Intended authorship and audiences for Academic Pathology are international and reach beyond academic pathology itself, including but not limited to healthcare providers, educators, researchers, and policy-makers.
期刊最新文献
Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in surgical pathology: implementation experience and longitudinal observations of resident development Educational Case: Neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia Social media in pathology and laboratory medicine: A systematic review Graduated responsibility and competency-based education in pathology residency programs: a five-year semi-longitudinal landscape assessment on autonomy and supervision A required medical student collaborative case presentation with a pathologist in the surgery clerkship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1