Board passage rates vary by specialty

[docta9]

Just saw these statistics:

ENT
http://www.aboto.org/pub/2012 Annual Report.pdf
The 2011 Fall Written Qualifying Exam was administered at computerized testing centers to 287 individuals on September 23, 2011. Results are as follows:
•272 individuals passed the exam
•15 individuals failed the exam
The Oral Certifying Exam was conducted on March 31 - April 1, 2012 in Chicago, IL, with 275 individuals sitting forthe exam. Results are as follows:
•274 individuals passed the exam
•1 individual failed the exam

For dermatology, 94.7% of candidates passed.

For ophthalmology, written pass rate is 75.95% (2015), 69-77% (2009-2015). The orals is 76-85% passing. Another way to look at it is:
2011
ENT 272 passed written, 15 failed
Ophthal. 454 passed written, 179 failed

2012 orals
ENT 274 passed orals, 1 failed
Ophthal. (spring 2012) 223 passed, 63 failed

ENT people are 63 times smarter than ophthalmologists, which must be a ******ed crowd. NO!!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JMK2005]

The stats do not make sense. The fail rate us unnecessarily high.

 

[MeetJoeBlack]

Docta9 are you ******ed or do you not know about the long held and stringent board cutoffs in ophthalmology? We automatically fail those who do not perform above the approximate bottom 25-30'th percentile on written/oral boards. In contrast, it is apparently acceptable to perform below the 1'st percentile and expect to pass boards in some other specialties. Ophthalmology sets the bar much higher promoting a race to the top instead of settling at the bottom. Let's assume we changed our cuttoff to pass everyone who took boards - a 100% percent pass rate - does that suddenly make us 'smarter' than ENT? LOL Come on -- did you not consider this or do you think we enjoy failing those within our own specialty? That said, your ignorance (or sarcasm) is laughable. Thank you for stirring the pot (aka trolling).

 

[backrow]

I think I took it differently than you MJB.

I took it to mean that they thought the failure rate was a bit ridiculous which I tend to agree with. Do we really think 30% of U.S. Residency graduates aren't capable to practice safely???

We are talking relative intelligence here, in the Boards you are being compared against all the other really smart Ophtho grads, it's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that number of smart people should fail the boards. Now, officially the board says that everyone can pass the Boards during one testing cycle, but the published numbers sing a different song.

Then we look at retakes...how many people don't pass the boards eventually? So did those people all the sudden get smarter or are they simply better test takers?

Those same percentage of people who passed boards on the second or subsequent try then go on to pass the MOC at a rate of something like 99%....so did all the sudden something change where we know believe the bottom 30% are now acceptable or is there something else at play?

Just something to chew on...

 

[DrZeke]

I think I took it differently than you MJB.

I took it to mean that they thought the failure rate was a bit ridiculous which I tend to agree with. Do we really think 30% of U.S. Residency graduates aren't capable to practice safely???

We are talking relative intelligence here, in the Boards you are being compared against all the other really smart Ophtho grads, it's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that number of smart people should fail the boards. Now, officially the board says that everyone can pass the Boards during one testing cycle, but the published numbers sing a different song.

Then we look at retakes...how many people don't pass the boards eventually? So did those people all the sudden get smarter or are they simply better test takers?

Those same percentage of people who passed boards on the second or subsequent try then go on to pass the MOC at a rate of something like 99%....so did all the sudden something change where we know believe the bottom 30% are now acceptable or is there something else at play?

Just something to chew on...

It's not about intelligence at this level. It's about effort, adequate preparation and time management. Sure, you have the extremes on either end, but 30% or not at the bottom extreme.

 

[Slide]

These cut-offs must be archaic and there's been an unwillingness to revise the cut-offs. That's the only somewhat reasonable (which is a stretch) explanation. Sure there are a few graduates out there that probably shouldn't be practicing at all, but surely not a fifth to a quarter of them! Perhaps the issue isn't about competency, but simply about money. These tests are expensive (from $1650 to $1900), and if you assume at least over 400 graduates are taking it, that's over half a million! Now, I do admit some ignorance about the costs of the tests and the costs to run them every year, but given that the tests are made from a pre-existing question bank and the tests are now computerized, you have to wonder how that money is being spent...

 

[pedseyedoc]

I think you all should look at the actual statistics for the WQE before you jump to conclusions:

http://abop.org/about/facts-statistics/

The first time pass rate in 2015 was just over 90%. In contrast, for ENT from 2007-2011 the first time pass rate for the WQE was 92%. The overall pass rate for the WQE in ophthalmology is much lower (76%), but this is considering repeat test-takers, many of which are multiple repeat test-takers. It does not surprise me that individuals who have difficulty taking a written test the first time, have difficulty the second time as well.

While the oral board pass rate is a little lower (low 80's percentile), the repeat test-taker pass rate for the oral boards is also in the low 80's percentile. This means the vast majority of test-takers will pass their boards.

The bigger issue, to me, is the DOCK exam. For example, in 2011, there were 772 first time DOCK test-takers. 20 of those people failed it. The following year, there were 22 repeat takers, presumably the 20 who failed the year before, in addition to 2 people who failed the test in previous years. Of those 22 repeat takers, there was one failure. Thus, from the original cohort of 772 test takers, there was, at most, one who failed to pass the DOCK exam by the second try. If 771/772 pass an exam, I am not sure the exam is worth taking in the first place. It would be much cheaper to just draw straws for the one unlucky individual.

 

[docta9]

ENT and Ophthalmology used to be a combined specialty (EENT). The American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology didn't separate into two until the late 1970's. The two specialties remain the goal of talented medical students.

Somehow, the pass rate for ENT (and dermatology, another competitive specialty) is extremely high compared to ophthalmology. With the ENT oral board, only 1 person failed (2012 results) compared to 63 in ophthalmology (similar number of examinees). The ENT written pass rate is also higher if you look at all test takers, those who are taking it for the first time, or repeaters. Something is going on in ophthalmology.

One troubling statement is that all candidates can pass the written boards. This is not really true. While it is theoretically possible for everyone to pass, then the standards for the future would be increasing high that it becomes impossible to sustain. The board's own explanation is that the passing cutoff is based on the performance of a previous testing session (and assumes that some people must fail).

My estimate is that about 50-60 residents per year will never become board certified. That adds up to over 1,000 over 20 years. Increasing, these 1,000-1,200 people won't be able to practice or will live a much tortured life.

Ouch...pain....agony.

(MJB's use of "we" means he/she is a ABO member?????)