Questions re: written exams

[clintpark]

Final stretch for the written exam prep.

Questions:
1) What practice exam materials are you guys using?
2) Anyone wanna share some of (1)?
3) How exactly do they determine whether someone passes/fails? I've heard that they are curved, but how do you then explain the extremely high passing rates in 2006? (I always knew that Brian Chang was a lucky bastard! j/k)

http://www.theabr.org/RO_Pri_Score.htm

Good luck, fellow PGY4s (... and PGY5s)!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[G'ville Nole]

Clint,

Sent you a PM.

 

[Adawaal]

Final stretch for the written exam prep.

Questions:
1) What practice exam materials are you guys using?
2) Anyone wanna share some of (1)?
3) How exactly do they determine whether someone passes/fails? I've heard that they are curved, but how do you then explain the extremely high passing rates in 2006? (I always knew that Brian Chang was a lucky bastard! j/k)

http://www.theabr.org/RO_Pri_Score.htm

Good luck, fellow PGY4s (... and PGY5s)!

They're not truly curved, per se. There is a threshold for passing determined a priori.

That said, the test makers do employ statisticians well-versed in standardized test metrics. Questions can be (and are) thrown out if, in the pooled analysis, they are shown to have a lack of discriminatory power between those who do well and those who do poorly. For example, if 85% of test takers miss #107, and it is missed equally between those who otherwise score very high and those who score poorly, that question is a poor discriminator of knowledge and is thrown out.

What you end up with is a percent correct determined prior to the exam but a denominator which may be lowered by bad questions.

 

[radonc]

I've heard that they are curved, but how do you then explain the extremely high passing rates in 2006?

i heard the residents from 2006 who took the board exam were exceptionally smart.

 

[clintpark]

For example, if 85% of test takers miss #107, and it is missed equally between those who otherwise score very high and those who score poorly...

then, we should hire trained monkeys as radiation oncologists!

 

[deleted4401]

Don't be giving the medical oncologists and surgeons any ideas ...
S

 

[stephew]

Don't be giving the medical oncologists and surgeons any ideas ...
S

in spite of what they think, they dont have much say in the matter.

 

[radonc]

in spite of what they think, they dont have much say in the matter.

well urologists certainly do, and they hire 'monkey' radiation oncologists to staff their machines.

 

[stephew]

well urologists certainly do, and they hire 'monkey' radiation oncologists to staff their machines.

this population does exist, very true. And its our own fault.

 

[medgator]

well urologists certainly do, and they hire 'monkey' radiation oncologists to staff their machines.

It probably doesn't help your future job prospects to be a private practice "prostate" monkey for 5 years and then try to move back into the realm of general radiation oncology should you decide to change jobs.

 

[stephew]

the thing is most of those monkeys can retire after 5 years. they're not going into it for love of the calling.