Clinical Written 2024
Started by wildernessrunner
Unless something drastic has changed, probably not great. The degree of minutia on this exam is notorious and despite the stated goal, does not assess standard proficiency.
Have to agree, having done all of radoncquestions, repeating high yield and incorrect, and both Essentials and Absolute Review, still felt like it was guesswork for 20-30% of the questions
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Then you should be fine. If you are pretty sure on half, 50/50 on a quarter, and wtf on a quarter, you are doing fine. But you summed it up great. How can you go through a databank of thousands of questions after years of training and still feel like you are guessing on up to a third of the test? Answer: it’s not assessing minimum competency.
I also feel like I may have to retake the exam, if that's any solace...
Ah yes. I remember seeing one that asked what is the pCR for X disease. Seems reasonable enough. But funny thing, there are 3 RCTs with answers ranging from 9-16% and the options included 9, 12, and 16%. So…????
Folks, this is an unfortunate right of passage. I don’t know anyone who leaves there feeling good. I was concerned I failed it and ended up scoring in the top quartile. For me, the issue was expectations. I was told for years it’s so much better than the inservice exam and the questions are highly vetted. If I had an accurate impression of what to expect, it would have been a totally different experience. The failure rate is low and usually comes down to people foolishly not adequately studying (or getting bad advice about how much prep is needed). General walking around knowledge and practical experience are not sufficient to pass these exams. I think I’m pretty good at what I do and I have been an attending for almost 10 years. I doubt I would pass the sections on the disease sites I specialize in if I tied to take it with no prep today.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I certainly found typos, and missing info in some questions
D
deleted1180461
When you get into career you have to continue answering OLA questions every week to maintain your board certification.
These swing to the other extreme.
Example:
You find out the patient received quadruple the intended radiation dose. What is the appropriate response?
A. Ignore it.
B. High five the patient.
C. Self dose some Ativan out of the Pyxis.
D. Report it.
Seriously. Not that I'm complaining about having my ability to practice not tied to constantly remembering the recurrence rate on PORTEC-2 to the decimal point.
These swing to the other extreme.
Example:
You find out the patient received quadruple the intended radiation dose. What is the appropriate response?
A. Ignore it.
B. High five the patient.
C. Self dose some Ativan out of the Pyxis.
D. Report it.
Seriously. Not that I'm complaining about having my ability to practice not tied to constantly remembering the recurrence rate on PORTEC-2 to the decimal point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Every once in a while the OLA question will be more in-service style and have answer choices of 15% 17% 18% 19% just to trigger some PTSD
But I'm definitely not complaining
But I'm definitely not complaining
That's what the declines are for 😏
Yeah, many questions with incomplete information on the clinical scenario that would guide recommendations. Was surprised by how sparse question stems were compared to radoncquestions.
ROQ questions are definitely better written and then refined overtime with input from the community than literally all other MC questions, whether that be inservice, clinical writtens, even rad bio/physics...
raphex, radonc questions, astro sample test questions.
ROQ has a very unique feature.
This is going to blow peoples minds.
They pay their question writers (at least they used to).
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
cold, hard cash… beats ABR and ACR
