We had a visiting professor yesterday who sits on the committee that writes and evaluates the ABR exams. He gave us some insight as to how the test is actually written and scored - I thought I would share. I for one had a jaw-dropping moment when I heard this, so some may find it interesting. As GFunk has alluded to in another thread, they use a method called "psychometrics" to evaluate questions. What happens is that experts from around the country submit questions, which are evaluated by a separate panel of experts (people who did not write any of the submitted questions). This panel sits in a room together while an exam question is presented to the group, then (no joke - this is really what happens) they go around the room and each member of the panel estimates what percentage of radiation oncology residents they think would be able to get that question right. Let's say that there are 3 members of the panel and one person says they think 90% of radonc residents should be able to answer the question, another 60% and the third 75%. Well, then that question would be assigned an "Angoff" number of 75% (the average of the three estimations). This process is repeated for each question on the exam until all questions have Angoff numbers. At that point, an average of all of the Angoff numbers gives you what the pass rate will be for the exam. They do take a look at the bell curve after the exam and if needed (but rarely) they will adjust the pass rate. But the whole point is that they do not rely on the bell curve anyway - they rely on psychometrics..their gut feeling of what they think we should know. So we spend 3 years indoctrinating ourselves to the evidence-based approach to everything and then our parents get together and talk about how really it's feelings that matter, not evidence at all It's like we've all been living in that movie the Village and then we get to the other side of the fence to see Santa Claus taking off his costume. Anyway, I simply could not believe it when this was explained to me, but in case you were dying to know, that is how it is determined whether you are smart enough to be a radiation oncologist or not. Now I do not know how I did on the exam yet, but I do know I passed. In terms of what to study, these were the resources I felt were most helpful: 1) Haffty Handbook of Radiation Oncology. This resource has not been mentioned that I am aware of, but I found it to be super high yield, particularly the radbio molecular chapter. I began and ended my studying by reading these chapters and I think they are right on the money. 2) Hall - I read it cover to cover during my PGY4 year. It is all in there, but it is also too thick to "study" from come exam time. Even though there are all the figures and the summary points, I just don't like it as an end-game resource. But certainly it gives you a good foundation if you read it. I re-read the first 7 chapters about a month prior to the exam and then looked at all the pictures in those chapters and read the summary points the week of the exam. This was high yield because there are a TON of questions from these chapters. 3) Radbio study guides. Excruciatingly painful to do your first time through them because they are very long. However, I recommend spending the bulk of your study time with these because they are, well, the study guides for the test which are written by the teacher, so you should take full advantage! I did the most recent 3 several times. Getting through the first one took me a couple of weeks, then it got much faster after that. I had a co-resident and we divided the exams and put them into powerpoint, which was much easier to study from then paper IMO. I quickly re-did these tests in the days before the exam, which was money. 4) Stinson and Stanton physics book (the green one). I read 3/4 of this book and cried real tears as I read it because it meant that I did not have to read Kahn. I did not touch Kahn and I do not think that you have to read any of it to pass. Anyway, I read most of this book about 3 months prior to the exam, then did all the Raphex questions I could get my hands on. 5) Maryland Review Course - I attended it because my department sends us and thought it was good for radbio. Physics was pretty basic at the course and I did not get a lot out of it. But it was good passive sponge learning I guess. Anyway, my 2 cents take em' or leave em'. Perhaps others can also contribute their thoughts and if we get comprehensive guide it can be useful to future test takers.