Board Certification in Psychiatry

learn how to start a private practice
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
I’ll put in my 2 cents for future test takers. For prep, I did board vitals (all of it during PGY2&3 since our program paid for it), Rosh review (half of it), K&S (all of it), psych genius (90% of it), and btb (20% of it). Like many of the posters here, I thought that K&S was the most representative of the exam. Many of the concepts were taken straight out of that book, and the style was the most similar to this book as well. Video and written vignettes were also most like the ones in K&S. Biochemistry and storage diseases are a bit overkill in this book, and I wish that some of the explanations were a little better in K&S. For example, they'll give an excruciatingly detailed explanation of the correct answer for like 1 page and then not make any mention of the incorrect choices lol. I didn't think the videos were too helpful, but the questions were pretty decent. I think Rosh review is very underrated. The answers and explanations are the best out of any qbank that I've used. They do focus a lot on DSM criteria, but they do a good job of telling me why the wrong answer was wrong and in some cases, in what context would it have been correct. I honestly don't remember board vitals too much since it's been a while since I've used it, but I do remember it being quite solid. I would actually put psych genius at the bottom. It did earn me a couple of points on the actual exam, but it focuses A LOT on details that just are not high yield whatsoever. The explanations are pretty bad too. They'll either be extremely long and difficult to follow or one liners. K&S > Rosh Review/BV > BTB (qbank only) > psych genius.

Actual exam was fair. I wouldn't say vignettes were easier or harder than the stand alones. Stand alones were “you know it or you don’t” type questions, and the vignettes, you could reason through a little more and do process of elimination a little better. I felt like they picked a handful of topics in both psych and neuro and really hammered down on those questions. Some “high yield” neuro and psych sections were completely absent from the test. Most of the neuro I did see was very basic. I felt like you just couldn't study for a good 5-10 percent of this exam, as in, there are no board prep companies that review the questions that falls into that 5-10 percent.

I would definitely recommend studying for this exam. I would recommend doing K+S + either one of Rosh, BV, or btb. Make sure to cover neuro, but don’t go nuts memorizing neuro minutia cause your time could be invested in other high yield topics that will reap you more points.
 
KhaoticKarma said:
I’ll put in my 2 cents for future test takers. For prep, I did board vitals (all of it during PGY2&3 since our program paid for it), Rosh review (half of it), K&S (all of it), psych genius (90% of it), and btb (20% of it). Like many of the posters here, I thought that K&S was the most representative of the exam. Many of the concepts were taken straight out of that book, and the style was the most similar to this book as well. Video and written vignettes were also most like the ones in K&S. Biochemistry and storage diseases are a bit overkill in this book, and I wish that some of the explanations were a little better in K&S. For example, they'll give an excruciatingly detailed explanation of the correct answer for like 1 page and then not make any mention of the incorrect choices lol. I didn't think the videos were too helpful, but the questions were pretty decent. I think Rosh review is very underrated. The answers and explanations are the best out of any qbank that I've used. They do focus a lot on DSM criteria, but they do a good job of telling me why the wrong answer was wrong and in some cases, in what context would it have been correct. I honestly don't remember board vitals too much since it's been a while since I've used it, but I do remember it being quite solid. I would actually put psych genius at the bottom. It did earn me a couple of points on the actual exam, but it focuses A LOT on details that just are not high yield whatsoever. The explanations are pretty bad too. They'll either be extremely long and difficult to follow or one liners. K&S > Rosh Review/BV > BTB (qbank only) > psych genius.

Actual exam was fair. I wouldn't say vignettes were easier or harder than the stand alones. Stand alones were “you know it or you don’t” type questions, and the vignettes, you could reason through a little more and do process of elimination a little better. I felt like they picked a handful of topics in both psych and neuro and really hammered down on those questions. Some “high yield” neuro and psych sections were completely absent from the test. Most of the neuro I did see was very basic. I felt like you just couldn't study for a good 5-10 percent of this exam, as in, there are no board prep companies that review the questions that falls into that 5-10 percent.

I would definitely recommend studying for this exam. I would recommend doing K+S + either one of Rosh, BV, or btb. Make sure to cover neuro, but don’t go nuts memorizing neuro minutia cause your time could be invested in other high yield topics that will reap you more points.
Click to expand...

Speaks to my experience. I would add that most of the K+S explanations are pretty clutch and got me quite a few points. If you only rely on K+S questions, then it's pretty limited in scope. But if you also read the explanations thoroughly, you'll be prepared for much of the exam and anticipate certain curve balls. I spent way too much time revising for metabolic diseases and biochemistry, however. Complete waste of time. There is 5-10% material, like poster above said, that you simply can't study for, like ACGME core competencies. Well, you could -- but it's random as heck and you'll be guessing and you'll probably throw your hands in the air. Some of the vignettes are basically impossible to study for, and the best preparation is probably knowing stand alone information. I would definitely study for this exam, as above.
 
Last edited:
adaptation1 said:
Unless I have some dissociative amnesia, I don't remember there being that many at all. I did study Neuro in depth using K+S, including all the explanations, which was helpful for the actual test questions that involved lesions and sleep medicine.

I think of it like this. 70% is passing based on prior years. That means we can get around 127 questions wrong and still pass. Here's to all of us putting this test to rest.
Click to expand...
Where did you get 70% number from?
 
yes that was for an old format until 2016. Scoring and format changed after 2016 as per my knowledge
 
nrmp said:
yes that was for an old format until 2016. Scoring and format changed after 2016 as per my knowledge
Click to expand...
Oh, interesting! Any idea what changed? At that time, Neuro and Psych were already merged and one didn't need to pass subsections.

" Candidates will receive a standard score for the total test. An acceptable level of performance must be achieved on the total standard score to pass the examination. The standards are not norm-referenced; there is no predefined passing rate for any group of candidates. In addition, candidates will receive a graphic diagnostic report for their performance on various subtopics of the examination."

That's all the info I can find.
 
usmleste3 said:
I felt the same way. K+S may be on the board for this exam, it seems, LOL. Some of the questions were directly from K+S. Lot of localization questions in Neuro and I felt the vignettes are vague. I did fellowship in Sleep Medicine and felt the questions are easy for me, subjectively. Lot of dementia questions but they were easy too. Many questions on which neurotransmitter for what disorder and which anatomical part of the brain is effected for each psychiatric disorder, etc.. particularly lot of questions on OCD in relation to brain... lot of psychotherapy questions - almost 6-10 in each stand alone blocks.
Click to expand...
It felt like exam didn't reflect the actual percentage of content specified on content specifications
 
adaptation1 said:
Oh, interesting! Any idea what changed? At that time, Neuro and Psych were already merged and one didn't need to pass subsections.

" Candidates will receive a standard score for the total test. An acceptable level of performance must be achieved on the total standard score to pass the examination. The standards are not norm-referenced; there is no predefined passing rate for any group of candidates. In addition, candidates will receive a graphic diagnostic report for their performance on various subtopics of the examination."

That's all the info I can find.
Click to expand...
I don't have details either but that's mystery unless somebody ask ABPN directly like how many number of questions needed to be right for a passing level in last 2-3 years!
 
Can we write to ABPN and complain? The percentage of topics to questions they "advertise" was not very accurate. I felt there was hardly any depression, bipolar, psychotic questions on this exam. It was vague nonsense topics that I don't even use on a day to day treating patients. Like I don't get why there were so many questions on various type of "studies" (cohort, prospective, etc). This just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Does anyone know how many wrong you can get for the Child Psych test? I don't want to retake it honestly.
 
According to ABPN website:


  • The ABPN utilizes a criterion-referenced approach to standard setting. That is, there are no preset pass/fail rates for any group of examinees (referred to as norm-referenced approaches). It is always possible for all examinees to pass an examination.
  • Periodically (typically every 7-8 years) a standard setting study is conducted by the test committee members and other subject matter experts. During a 2-day meeting, they review all of the items on the examination and use well-established, evidence-based procedures to set the passing standard for the examination.
  • After the initial standard has been set, in subsequent years statistical procedures are used to equate the pass/fail standard across different versions of the same test. This removes any advantage associated with taking a test with easier items or disadvantage associated with taking a test with harder items.
  • This phase typically takes 2-4 weeks, depending on whether a standard setting study is conducted or whether equating is used.
 
nrmp said:
According to ABPN website:


  • The ABPN utilizes a criterion-referenced approach to standard setting. That is, there are no preset pass/fail rates for any group of examinees (referred to as norm-referenced approaches). It is always possible for all examinees to pass an examination.
  • Periodically (typically every 7-8 years) a standard setting study is conducted by the test committee members and other subject matter experts. During a 2-day meeting, they review all of the items on the examination and use well-established, evidence-based procedures to set the passing standard for the examination.
  • After the initial standard has been set, in subsequent years statistical procedures are used to equate the pass/fail standard across different versions of the same test. This removes any advantage associated with taking a test with easier items or disadvantage associated with taking a test with harder items.
  • This phase typically takes 2-4 weeks, depending on whether a standard setting study is conducted or whether equating is used.
Click to expand...
what does all this mean?
 
adaptation1 said:
lol...figures. like all things in medicine, probably just means a few free meals.
Click to expand...
The person I talked to claimed that they decide which experimental questions to throw out based on how people perform on them... and that ends up targeting the approximately 20% overall fail rate. That, to me, seems completely at odds with the published info that was quoted above, so I'm not sure how skeptical to be about either set of information.
 
FlowRate said:
The person I talked to claimed that they decide which experimental questions to throw out based on how people perform on them... and that ends up targeting the approximately 20% overall fail rate. That, to me, seems completely at odds with the published info that was quoted above, so I'm not sure how skeptical to be about either set of information.
Click to expand...

I think they throw out questions that too many comment on at the end of the exam survey and/or too many people get wrong. In other words, they might aim for a 70% correct as passing but do not aim for a 20% overall fail rate. I am just guessing like we all are here, anyhow. When we getting this stupid score?!
 
adaptation1 said:
I think they throw out questions that too many comment on at the end of the exam survey and/or too many people get wrong. In other words, they might aim for a 70% correct as passing but do not aim for a 20% overall fail rate. I am just guessing like we all are here, anyhow. When we getting this stupid score?!
Click to expand...
~December IIRC (10-12 weeks).
 
FlowRate said:
The person I talked to claimed that they decide which experimental questions to throw out based on how people perform on them... and that ends up targeting the approximately 20% overall fail rate. That, to me, seems completely at odds with the published info that was quoted above, so I'm not sure how skeptical to be about either set of information.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to take out good chunk of experimental questions? If someone prepared more for some odd topics well and did good on those experimental questions and not on others they could still fail even if they answered more questions right in total out of 425? Is that true?
 
nrmp said:
Is it fair to take out good chunk of experimental questions? If someone prepared more for some odd topics well and did good on those experimental questions and not on others they could still fail even if they answered more questions right in total out of 425? Is that true?
Click to expand...

They probably have a cut-off. Like if only 5% of percent of test-takers got a question right, then it's not a psychometrically valid as a test question. I think all standardized tests have this procedure.
 
Luckily I passed the child boards, hope everyone else got good news.
 
My Physician Folios account doesn't show anything yet (adult boards), but under exam history it says:
"No Examination History Records are currently on file."

Is everyone else seeing the same thing, or some kind of score pending message?
 
Seeing the same thing. Probably won’t get scores until December 8th. The email said “no later than Dec 8th”

doctosaurus said:
My Physician Folios account doesn't show anything yet (adult boards), but under exam history it says:
"No Examination History Records are currently on file."

Is everyone else seeing the same thing, or some kind of score pending message?
Click to expand...
 
doctosaurus said:
My Physician Folios account doesn't show anything yet (adult boards), but under exam history it says:
"No Examination History Records are currently on file."

Is everyone else seeing the same thing, or some kind of score pending message?
Click to expand...
Above the examination history records section, under application status there is a link that says apply for an examination but when I click on it I am getting an error message
 
I’m getting the same error. Not sure what this implies
 
Can’t you see if you passed a few days before ? I’m worried cuz there’s no diplomats information on dime for me
 
Now the error link is gone and showing me options to apply for pain and sleep medicine exams. Is that something positive?
 
mle3 said:
Now the error link is gone and showing me options to apply for pain and sleep medicine exams. Is that something positive?
Click to expand...

From what I have read in earlier messages. It does not mean anything other than that they are working on it lol
 
mampa said:
From what I have read in earlier messages. It does not mean anything other than that they are working on it lol
Click to expand...
Thank you. I gave the exam last year too and did not see this update on the day of results and failed. I did sleep medicine fellowship and I will eligible to apply only if I am board certified in Psychiatry. Fingers crossed. I hope I will make it this year....
 
Good luck to you.

I thought scores would be out by now...


mle3 said:
Thank you. I gave the exam last year too and did not see this update on the day of results and failed. I did sleep medicine fellowship and I will eligible to apply only if I am board certified in Psychiatry. Fingers crossed. I hope I will make it this year....
Click to expand...
 
adaptation1 said:
Oh cool you emailed them? Thanks for the info. They are behind schedule, I guess.
Click to expand...
No, I did not email them. I just got it. "You can access your 2020 Score Report, Grade Letter, and other valuable information through your ABPN Physician Folios account beginning on Wednesday, December 9, 2020"
 
mle3 said:
No, I did not email them. I just got it. "You can access your 2020 Score Report, Grade Letter, and other valuable information through your ABPN Physician Folios account beginning on Wednesday, December 9, 2020"
Click to expand...

When did they send the email to you. I haven’t received the email
 
I just received an email saying that the results will be available tomorrow December 9th. Not sure what time though lol
 
I got the December 9 email also. I looked back at the 10/22 e-,mail regarding when to expect results:

"We anticipate the results of your examination being available in your ABPN Physician Folios account no later than December 8, 2020."

I mean, I'm not refreshing the page or anything, but when you pay $2000+ for an electronic exam that in any sensible world could be scored/corrected in at most, a week, this all just seems a little silly.
 
FatherPsychiatry said:
I got the December 9 email also. I looked back at the 10/22 e-,mail regarding when to expect results:

"We anticipate the results of your examination being available in your ABPN Physician Folios account no later than December 8, 2020."

I mean, I'm not refreshing the page or anything, but when you pay $2000+ for an electronic exam that in any sensible world could be scored/corrected in at most, a week, this all just seems a little silly.
Click to expand...
and unprofessional!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Psychiatry Initial Certification Boards: How much neurology/psychology/stats is in this thing?
Replies
6
Views
4K
SPsych6
S
T
"Medical clearance" in emergency psychiatry
Replies
8
Views
2K
comp1
C
C
Addiction psychiatry board exam studying help/suggestions
Replies
4
Views
1K
Central_SOULcus
C
P
EEG in psychiatry
Replies
16
Views
2K
Psychferlyfe3000
P
T
Wisdom and it's role in Psychiatry
Replies
11
Views
2K
thelastpsych
T
Top