boards scoring system revised

[Gorlum]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For those who like to freak while awaiting results:
My PD (I should say Ex-PD) was in Seattle with Betty Whoever at CME meeting. The later declared that from Spring 2010 onward new scoring system has been adopted to "ensure minimal proficiency". She said that much, and further interrogations were useless. We don't know what the system was to begin with...

 

[Patho2009]

to "ensure minimal proficiency".

Does this mean that there was no proficiency ensured in the previous scoring system?

 

[green mantis]

I kind of wonder what "minimal proficiency" means also. Considering that 60-70% of people pass their boards the 1st time around, does this mean it'll make the exam easier to pass? Being an optomist, I would tend to think that most residents are minimally proficient by the time they finish residency, so the pass rate should be higher.

I've heard that for some specialties that the passing rates are closer to 90%.


----- Antony

 

[Gorlum]

Does this mean that there was no proficiency ensured in the previous scoring system?

There is plenty of room for interpretation🙂.

 

[star23]

As someone who is FREAKING out waiting for board scores, WTF does that mean? I feel like this whole process has been one mind-&*^% after another.

 

[deleted314957]

Perhaps the previous scoring was quota based and had less to do with proficiency?

 

[MirkoCrocop]

this is a fun way to start the morning

my first thought was that it is going to be harder to pass, as in they were previously passing those who may or may not have demonstrated "minimal proficiency," and now they're going to make sure by raising the cutoff!

crikey!!1

 

[KCShaw]

The ABPath 2010 newsletter indicated some exams in the past were criterion-referenced (if you fulfill sufficient criteria, you pass) while others were norm-referenced (graded on a curve, so to speak). But, the norm-referenced/reference-group method seems to have only been used for a couple of rare subspecialty exams (medical micro and molecular genetics, in 2007). There was actually perhaps some degree of logic in doing so with the mol genetic exam that year, as it was evidently the last year someone could be eligible based solely on experience. Anyway -- according to that newsletter, as of 2009 all exams were criterion-referenced. If they're changing it again in 2010, I have no idea what that means. Over the years, though, I grow less comfortable with the lack of transparency or explanation of how, when, and why the exams (and therefore the basic standards of our specialty) are changing. I don't believe the board is meant to be a mystic entity shrouded in uncertainty.

Then again, the whole thing could be an odd miscommunication.

This basic discussion has come up before in another thread, I'm pretty sure.

 

[yaah]

To me, "minimal proficiency" would suggest that there is no curve. Theoretically, 100% of applicants could pass the test, or 100% could fail. It depends on how "proficiency" is defined. Using the word minimal suggests that the criteria will not be as stringent as before, to me.