scholarly journals Do USMLE Steps and ITE Results Predict Performance in the American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Supratik Rayamajhi ◽  
Prajwal Dhakal ◽  
Ling Wang ◽  
Manoj P Rai ◽  
Shiva Shrotriya
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Pass Rate ◽  
Michigan State University ◽  
State University ◽  
Probability Curve ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
Service Training ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step

Abstract Objective To evaluate if United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1, USMLE Step 2, USMLE Step 3, and residency third-year in-service training exam (ITE) results predict performance of Internal Medicine (IM) residents in American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam (ABIM-CE). Methods A retrospective review of USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, USMLE Step 3 scores, residency third year ITE and ABIM-CE of IM residents at Michigan State University from 2004 through 2017 was conducted. Pearson correlation coefficient and two sample t-tests were used to assess the relationship between various scores and pass or fail results in ABIM-CE. Results Among 114 MD residents included in the study; 92% (n=105) passed the ABIM-CE. There was a significant correlation of passing ABIM-CE with USMLE Step 1 (OR 1.042; 95% CI 1.004- 1.082), Step 2 (OR 1.043; 95% CI 1.004-1.085) and Step 3 (OR 1.046; 95% CI 1.004- 1.089) independently, with the combined odds of all USMLE exams being 1.044 (p=0.031). Increase in ITE percentage increased the likelihood of passing ABIM-CE (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.160-1.419). The increase in the gap was associated with decreased chances of passing ABIM-CE (OR 0.774; 95% CI 0.670-0.893). All residents who failed ABIM-CE had Step 1 scores <220. Among 31 residents with Step 2 score <220, 20% (n=6) failed ABIM. Similarly, 9% of residents with USMLE Step 3 score less than 220 failed ABIM-CE; all residents who failed had scores less than 220. The probability curve predicted that the chance of passing ABIM- CE was around 80% with USMLE scores greater than 200 and increased to almost 100% with USMLE scores of 250 or more. Conclusion There is a strong correlation between ABIM-CE results with scores of USMLE Steps and third-year ITE. Thus, performance in these exams may identify the internal medicine residents who might need more help in ABIM-CE. This helps the residents as well as the program to plan and implement various measures to improve the pass rate.

scholarly journals Do USMLE Steps, and ITE Score Predict the American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam results?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Supratik Rayamajhi ◽  
Prajwal Dhakal ◽  
Ling Wang ◽  
Manoj P Rai ◽  
Shiva Shrotriya
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Probability Curve ◽  
Point Increase ◽  
Service Training ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Board Review

Abstract Objective: To evaluate if United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1, USMLE Step 2 CK, USMLE Step 3, and residency third-year in-service training exam (ITE) results predict the results of residents in American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam (ABIM-CE). Methods: A retrospective review of USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, USMLE Step 3 scores, residency third year ITE and ABIM-CE of IM residents at our residency program from 2004 through 2017 was conducted. Pearson correlation coefficient and two-sample t-tests were used to assess the relationship between various scores. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict pass or fail results in ABIM-CE using USMLE and third-year ITE test scores controlling for other covariates. Results: Among 114 MD residents included in the study; 92% (n=105) passed the ABIM-CE. USMLE score was a significant predictor of passing ABIM-CE. The OR of passing ABIM-CE was 2.70 (95 % CI=1.38-5.29), 2.31 (95% CI=1.33-4.01), and 1.63 (95% CI=0.81-3.29) with a ten-point increase in USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2 and USMLE step 3 scores respectively. OR of ABIM-CE passing chance was 2.96 (95% CI=0.95-9.20) with a ten-point increase in the average score of the above three exams. A five percent increase in ITE percentage raised the likelihood of passing ABIM-CE (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.15-7.38). All residents who failed ABIM-CE had Step 1 scores <220. Among 31 residents with Step 2 score <220, 20% (n=6) failed ABIM. Similarly, 9% of residents with USMLE Step 3 score < 220 failed ABIM-CE; all residents who failed had scored < 220. The probability curve predicted that the chance of passing ABIM- CE was around 80% with USMLE scores greater than 200 and increased to almost 100% with USMLE scores of 250 or more. Conclusion: USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, and third-year ITE scores strongly predict the chances of passing ABIM-CE. Thus, programs can identify internal medicine residents at risk of failing ABIM-CE and need intervention at an early stage. Various measures such as enrolling them in question banks or board review courses can then be implemented by programs to improve their chances to pass.

scholarly journals Do USMLE Steps and ITE Results Predict Performance in the American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Supratik Rayamajhi ◽  
Prajwal Dhakal ◽  
Ling Wang ◽  
Manoj P Rai ◽  
Shiva Shrotriya
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Probability Curve ◽  
Point Increase ◽  
Service Training ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Board Review

Abstract Objective: To evaluate if United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1, USMLE Step 2, USMLE Step 3, and residency third-year in-service training exam (ITE) results predict performance of Internal Medicine (IM) residents in American Board of Internal Medicine Certifying Exam (ABIM-CE). Methods: A retrospective review of USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, USMLE Step 3 scores, residency third year ITE and ABIM-CE of IM residents at our residency program from 2004 through 2017 was conducted. Pearson correlation coefficient and two-sample t-tests were used to assess the relationship between various scores. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict pass or fail results in ABIM-CE using USMLE and third-year ITE test scores controlling for other covariates. Results: Among 114 MD residents included in the study; 92% (n=105) passed the ABIM-CE. USMLE score was a significant predictor of passing ABIM-CE. The OR of passing ABIM-CE was 2.70 (95 % CI=1.38-5.29), 2.31 (95% CI=1.33-4.01), and 1.63 (95% CI=0.81-3.29) with a ten-point increase in USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2 and USMLE step 3 scores respectively. OR of ABIM-CE passing chance was 2.96 (95% CI=0.95-9.20) with a ten-point increase in the average score of the above three exams. A five percent increase in ITE percentage raised the likelihood of passing ABIM-CE (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.15-7.38). All residents who failed ABIM-CE had Step 1 scores <220. Among 31 residents with Step 2 score <220, 20% (n=6) failed ABIM. Similarly, 9% of residents with USMLE Step 3 score < 220 failed ABIM-CE; all residents who failed had scored < 220. The probability curve predicted that the chance of passing ABIM- CE was around 80% with USMLE scores greater than 200 and increased to almost 100% with USMLE scores of 250 or more. Conclusion: USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, and third-year ITE scores strongly predict the chances of passing ABIM-CE. Thus, programs can identify internal medicine residents at risk of failing ABIM-CE and need intervention at an early stage. Various measures such as enrolling them in question banks or board review courses can then be implemented by programs to improve their chances to pass.

scholarly journals Racial Bias in Using USMLE Step 1 Scores to Grant Internal Medicine Residency Interviews

2001 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 1253-1256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Edmond ◽  
Jennifer L. Deschenes ◽  
Maia Eckler ◽  
Richard P. Wenzel
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Racial Bias ◽  
Internal Medicine Residency ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step

scholarly journals The Fellowship Competitiveness Index: A Novel Way to Estimate Admission Competition into Internal Medicine Subspecialties

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huynh Wynn Tran ◽  
Russell W. De Jong ◽  
Quinto Gesiotto
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Valid Measure ◽  
Medical Graduates ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Physician Compensation ◽  
Salary Increase ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step

Abstract Background The competitiveness of internal medicine (IM) fellowships have not been well studied. Our novel competitiveness metric aims to estimate IM subspecialty fellowships entry competitiveness in a single, concise number that is easily accessible and understandable. Through this we hope to offer assistance to prospective fellowship applicants in making an educated and realistic fellowship choice. Methods Fellowship filled percentages, the percentage of applications from US medical graduates (USMGs), average matriculating USMLE Step 1 scores, and average post-fellowship salary were used to construct our metric. Procedural specialties included cardiology, pulmonary/critical care, and gastroenterology. Non-procedural specialties included hematology/oncology, rheumatology, endocrinology, infectious disease, and nephrology. Data were gathered from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) 2009 - 2018 reports, Medscape’s Physician Compensation Reports, and other sources used to corroborate salaries. Results 2018 procedural FCI (25.92) was higher than non-procedural (15.61). Cardiology (FCI 28.72, salary $423,000, Step 1 237.67) was the most competitive field. Hematology/oncology leads non-procedural fields in FCI (28.02), USMG percentage (60%), and salary ($363,000). Nephrology fill rates have declined from 94.8% to 60.1% despite 32% salary increase, giving it the lowest FCI (7.04). Conclusions Calculations show procedural specialties are most competitive, with cardiology at the top. Hematology/oncology leads non-procedural fields and is approaching procedural competitiveness, as evidenced by multiple factors that rival or surpass gastroenterology and pulmonary/critical care. We believe that this metric is a simple, accessible, and valid measure of competitiveness of fellowship entry and with further manipulation can be generalized to residency competitiveness.

scholarly journals Correction to: A comparison of orthopaedic surgery and internal medicine perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Mun ◽  
Alyssa R. Scott ◽  
David Cui ◽  
Erik B. Lehman ◽  
Seongho Jeong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

scholarly journals Training and Performance Differences in US Internal Medicine Residents Trained in Community- and University-Based Programs – a Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Yasir Rehman
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pass Rate ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Performance Differences ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
The Difference ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Review Reports

Introduction:Residents’ learning and performance depends on program structures, clinical setting and faculty mentors; however,performance differences between and community based vs. university based residents have not been exploredsystematically.Objectives:To systematically review the performance differences between internal medicine residents trained in community-basedprograms [CBPs] versus university-based programs [UBPs] in the US.Methods:Eligible studies were identified in Medline and Embase databases from 1990- June 2018. Eligible studies comparedlearning and performance differences between UBP and CBP internal medicine residency programs aligned withACGME recommendations.Results:Out of 4916 titles, 14 cross-sectional studies were included in the analysis. Diverse reporting among the includedstudies precluded meta-analysis. Significant differences were found in specific practice areas, such as knowledge aboutHIV, nutrition training, and program accreditation cycle. Residents in UBPs participated more often in hypothesisdriven research and had higher publication rates than residents in CBPs. Residents trained in CBPs experienced moreburnt out than those in UBPs and had higher prevalence of residents with problematic behaviors and deficiencies.Nonsignificant differences were found among residents regarding ABIM pass rate, medical procedures, and publichealth training.Conclusion:Our review reports inconsistent trends in residents’ learning and performances following RRC- IM and ACGMErecommendations. Significant differences were noted in areas that required more practice and system based learning,non-procedural skills and patient care. Future studies with larger sample sizes and adjusted analyses are needed toevaluate the difference between residents’ performance and learning in UBPs versus CBPs.

scholarly journals Night Float Teaching and Learning: Perceptions of Residents and Faculty

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean A. Bricker ◽  
Ronald J. Markert
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Learning Opportunities ◽  
State University ◽  
Educational Value ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Night Float ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
Perceptions Of Education ◽  
Attending Physicians

Abstract Background Most internal medicine residency programs use a night float system to comply with resident duty hour limits. Night float assignments often comprise 7 to 10 weeks of scheduled clinical time during training. Despite this substantial allotment of time to night float, few studies have assessed the adequacy of learning opportunities during these rotations. We designed an exploratory study to assess resident and faculty views about the educational aspects of a typical internal medicine night float system. Methods Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine internal medicine residents and attending faculty were asked to complete a 25-item voluntary, anonymous survey. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess perceptions of education during day and night rotations. Results The response rate was 52% (85 of 164). Residents rated teaching and learning on day rotations more positively than on night rotations for 17 of 25 (68%) items. Regarding night float, residents rated 14 of 25 items below 3.00; only one item was rated below 3.00 (“…H & P skills observed by attending”) for day rotations. Attending physicians rated day rotations more highly for all 25 survey items. Faculty rated 13 of 25 items below 3.00 for night float and they rated no items below 3.00 for day rotations. Resident and faculty ratings differed significantly for 10 items, with 5 items receiving higher ratings by residents and 5 being rated more positively by faculty. Conclusion Despite a substantial allotment of time to night rotations, there appear to be lost teaching and learning opportunities in the current night float system. Modification of the existing format may improve its educational value.

scholarly journals Use of Filters for Residency Application Review: Results From the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination Program Director Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam M. Garber ◽  
Brian Kwan ◽  
Christopher M. Williams ◽  
Steven V. Angus ◽  
T. Robert Vu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Knowledge Score ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Initial Application ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Review Cycle ◽  
Residency Application

ABSTRACT Background The increase in applications to residency programs, known as “application inflation,” creates challenges for program directors (PDs). Prior studies have shown that internal medicine (IM) PDs utilize criteria, such as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step examination performance, when reviewing applications. However, little is known about how early these filters are utilized in the application review cycle. Objective This study sought to assess the frequency and types of filters utilized by IM PDs during initial residency application screening and prior to more in-depth application review. Methods A web-based request for the 2016 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) PD Survey was sent to IM PDs. Responses from this survey were analyzed, excluding non-US programs. Results With a 50% response rate (214 of 424), IM PDs responded that the most commonly used data points to filter applicants prior to in-depth application review were the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score (32%, 67 of 208), USMLE Step 1 score (24%, 50 of 208), and medical school attended (12%, 25 of 208). Over half of US IM PD respondents (55%, 114 of 208) indicated that they list qualifying interview criteria on their program website, and 31% of respondents (50 of 160) indicated that more than half of their applicant pool does not meet the program's specified interview criteria. Conclusions Results from the 2016 IM-ITE PD Survey indicate many IM PDs use filters for initial application screening, and that these filters, when available to applicants, do not affect many applicants' decisions to apply.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document