- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 9
Anyone else really enjoy the Holiday Card sent out by the ABR today?
anyone willing to share hall notes/summaries?
Hey guys,
So its January and I haven't heard anything from the ABR in terms of a new study giude, early test options, ANYTHING that we heard they might be considering. Has anyone heard any updates? ARRO, anything from your end?
Looks like ARRO posted the most recent ABR letter. From the letter:
"Candidate performance on “used” versus “unused” items was psychometrically valid and reproducible, and in several instances, performance of failed candidates was actually better on the 2018 exam than the 2017 administration"
...are they finally admitting that the exam was harder and that 2018 candidates actually did better than 2017 candidates on the pool of questions that was in common between the two tests? Meaning the new questions were more difficult/is the reason for the higher fail rate? Even though the rest of the letter does not seem like ABR is admitting guilt, this is pretty damning
Could you please link the letter? I don’t see it on ARROs website
Looks like ARRO posted the most recent ABR letter. From the letter:
"Candidate performance on “used” versus “unused” items was psychometrically valid and reproducible, and in several instances, performance of failed candidates was actually better on the 2018 exam than the 2017 administration"
...are they finally admitting that the exam was harder and that 2018 candidates actually did better than 2017 candidates on the pool of questions that was in common between the two tests? Meaning the new questions were more difficult/is the reason for the higher fail rate? Even though the rest of the letter does not seem like ABR is admitting guilt, this is pretty damning
Sounds like they were trying to prove that those that failed didn't fail due to lack of recalls.
this has been clear from the start, but yes good to see that fact.
this was never a recall issue.
it was a 'the 2018 test was much harder' issue
yes, residents should definitely study stuff about cancer and radiation.Study Guide:
1. Entirety of Radiation Biology
2. Entirety of Molecular Biology
3. Entirety of Cellular Biology
4. Entirety of Cancer Biology
5. Entirety of Immunology
Nail those 5 simple topics and you're probably set.
Study Guide:
1. Entirety of Radiation Biology
2. Entirety of Molecular Biology
3. Entirety of Cellular Biology
4. Entirety of Cancer Biology
5. Entirety of Immunology
Nail those 5 simple topics and you're probably set.
Do you really only want to be minimally competent?Obtain PhDs in Cancer Biology and Immunology at minimum, probably Radiation Biology as well just to be safe.
3. It must be understood that the basic nature of science is fluid, and that in any given year, exam items may be added and not specifically referenced in the study guide. The number of such items would be limited.
This afternoon, the ABR posted the updated study guides on their website (see attached).
They also sent a letter with the following to representatives of ARRO, ADROP, SCAROP, and ASTRO:
It is critical that the various constituencies involved in the process understand the purpose of the guides and a clarification:
1. Topics have been categorized and divided in a more granular fashion that should focus preparation better, and will certainly allow for improved understanding and usefulness of performance reporting.
2. References have been carefully selected to be highly useful to residents and candidates in exam preparation, and primary and secondary references will serve as the sources of a majority of exam items
3. It must be understood that the basic nature of science is fluid, and that in any given year, exam items may be added and not specifically referenced in the study guide. The number of such items would be limited.
Taken from the ABIM website. For the fellowship examination in medical oncology, approximately 12-15% of the questions are devoted to cancer biology, genetics and tumor biology. At present 5.5 hours of test time is devoted to Medical Physics and Radiation Cancer Biology. This is greater than 50% of the test time. Is RadOnc that different?Thanks for sharing this. I wonder how much of the cancer biology is covered on the med onc exam, ha!
Practically none of course. Which makes med oncs so stupid, rad oncs sooooo smart. *patting collective selves on back*Thanks for sharing this. I wonder how much of the cancer biology is covered on the med onc exam, ha!
Pedantic, and nit-picky, but you are correct. It is so much better to be correct than incorrect, especially when death is on the line! Er, especially when making a board-certified physician is on the line. Like Twain said: What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so. The ABR knows a lot of stuff for sure it seems.Wellllllll...it is an improvement, however I'm not sure it's going to solve all the world's problems. I still have a few quibbles though, in particular the ABR's insistence that this constitutes a "study guide". An outline is not a study guide!
- No relative "weights" for each topic vis-a-vis the exam, and related, no recommendation for all us incompetent educators as to how many lecture-hours should be devoted to each topic.
- Adding secondary references = good, even though a few are outdated (particularly the one about mechanisms of cell death).
- Mentioning alpha-beta ratios under the heading of "models of cell survival" only reinforces the INCORRECT notion that alpha-beta ratios used clinically are derived from cell survival curve parameters.
The biggest bit of good news? Adding the Joiner & van der Kogel textbook as a primary reference, which I have long maintained is superior to Hall & Giaccia.
- And for the love of all that is sacred, it's the "4 (or 5) R's of Radiotherapy" not "of radiobiology" and definitely not "of fractionation". </pet peeve>