New DR oral board exam

[odyssey2]

ABR

November 14 Oral Exam Update June 28 Addressing Questions About the New Exam May 11 Town Hall Recording Available April 13 Transition to New DR Oral Exam Beginning in calendar year 2028 and first applying to DR residents completing training in June 2027 (entering their R1 year in July...

www.theabr.org

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Womb Raider]

Glad I dodged that bullet.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Was there an oral exam in place prior to this and this one is just an updated version?

 

[Cognovi]

Was there an oral exam in place prior to this and this one is just an updated version?

Before 2013, there was an oral exam for the qualifying exam portion.

 

[GoPelicans]

Wonder what the motivation was to bring this back

 

[guytakingboards]

Wonder what the motivation was to bring this back

According to the ABR newsletters, a lot of stakeholders (both PP jobs and academic departments) felt that recent graduates were less so prepared for the transition to practice than years before. That preparation for the certifying exam did not mimic preparing for the real job. Given that the goal of the certification exam is minimum competence to practice, that was a problem.

Having taken the certifying exam with 3 neuro modules (and later the neuro CAQ) and also having worked in a very sub-specialized job and now much more general job.... the certifying exam was a joke. If you were a half decent resident, did a fellowship and picked 3 modules in your specialty then you didn't even need to study for the certifying beyond the AU crap. That should not be the case for a certification exam. It certainly wasn't reflective of the bigger transition to practice issues like broad general call knowledge or reading speed.

 

[Womb Raider]

It certainly wasn't reflective of the bigger transition to practice issues like broad general call knowledge or reading speed.

Isn't that what's covered with CORE? As someone studying for it now, there's so much information I find it hard to believe someone could pass this test and be an incompetent radiologist.

 

[guytakingboards]

Isn't that what's covered with CORE? As someone studying for it now, there's so much information I find it hard to believe someone could pass this test and be an incompetent radiologist.

The core exam tests a lot of esoteric material, alot of which you'll never see again. I think hopefully the oral exam condenses that down to more general but can't-miss level cases.

The bigger take away is that having two MCQ tests be your only basis for establishing general competence was a big mistake. Especially when the pass rate on the actual "certifying" exam is like 99+%. I've never heard of someone actually failing the certifying exam in the Core era.

 

[colbgw02]

As someone who took the oral boards, I'm glad to hear this. Surprised, but glad. I hope they keep it at the Executive West/Crown Plaza near the Louisville airport so that radiologists young and old can share stories.

ETA: Well, crap. Just saw that they plan to administer it remotely. Too bad. There was nothing quite like trying to concentrate on a chest CT when the smell from your examiner's freshly-taken poop filled the hotel room.

 

[Cognovi]

The core exam tests a lot of esoteric material, alot of which you'll never see again. I think hopefully the oral exam condenses that down to more general but can't-miss level cases.

The bigger take away is that having two MCQ tests be your only basis for establishing general competence was a big mistake. Especially when the pass rate on the actual "certifying" exam is like 99+%. I've never heard of someone actually failing the certifying exam in the Core era.

The fact that few people failed it doesn't necessarily make it invalid.

I agree with you that having two MCQs be the basis of certification is a mistake, because MCQs don't test some of the domains of competencies we expect from radiologists.

 

[guytakingboards]

The fact that few people failed it doesn't necessarily make it invalid.

Doesn't it? USMLE Step 2 CK had a 97+% pass rate for USMD's and they got rid of it. There's probably a decent argument for getting rid of step 3.

The fact that it was "create your own adventure" was definitely a big problem too. It was no longer a test of "general competence".

EDIT* as correctly pointed out below, i meant Step 2 CS

 

[Womb Raider]

Doesn't it? USMLE Step 2 CK had a 97+% pass rate for USMD's and they got rid of it. There's probably a decent argument for getting rid of step 3.

The fact that it was "create your own adventure" was definitely a big problem too. It was no longer a test of "general competence".

It was CS that was replaced, not CK. But yeah, they should've kept it for the international applicants. Such a stupid thing for Americans to have to go through.

I have to agree with Cog though - I don't see why competency and pass rate have to be connected. Just because the pass rate increases doesn't mean we have to subsequently raise the bar for competency.

 

[guytakingboards]

It was CS that was replaced, not CK. But yeah, they should've kept it for the international applicants. Such a stupid thing for Americans to have to go through.

I have to agree with Cog though - I don't see why competency and pass rate have to be connected. Just because the pass rate increases doesn't mean we have to subsequently raise the bar for competency.

a P/F test with a 99+% pass rate is a giant waste of time and money (for everyone)..... and probably isn't a good judge of competency.

Basically the ABR for the last decade or so was operating under the model where the core exam was the de facto certifying exam and the actual certifying exam was a checkbox. I can't complain too much, because I graduated and became BC'ed under that model. But it's absolutely justified to look at the series of exams and ask if they'd accomplished what they'd intended.... and conclude that the current core/certifying model did not.

 

[Cognovi]

It can be a waste of time if you believe everyone is competent after graduating residency, and residency graduation should be the final bar for determining competence. If you don't believe that 99% of board-eligible radiologists are competent a year after finishing training, then that would be the basis of a reasonable argument.

 

[guytakingboards]

It can be a waste of time if you believe everyone is competent after graduating residency, and residency graduation should be the final bar for determining competence. If you don't believe that 99% of board-eligible radiologists are competent a year after finishing training, then that would be the basis of a reasonable argument.

Both can be true.

It is a dumb test cuz it’s fails less than 1% of people, therefore the probability that it actually accomplishes its purported goal is doubtful…. and isn’t worth the time/effort to attempt to exclude that <1%. I would say that for any test. Just low internal validity.

Flip side: regarding actual competence, that is mostly the argument the stakeholders are making. That even amongst the 99% of people who passed the certifying, their performance is unsatisfactory for a BC’ed radiologist.

 

[Smallfishtinypond]

Worst sleep in a hotel is in Executive West in Louisville.
Best Bourbon ever touched my lips in life is at the Louisville Airport, on the return trip.

 

[PhysMatMan]

Agree that low fail rate would generally suggest there is something wrong with the test. However there are situations where a low fail rate is acceptable, and sometimes the mere presence of a test inspires studying and perhaps competence. Radiology doesn't need to be a pyramid where we continually weed out people over years of curved standardized tests.