These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Association Between American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination Scores and Resident Performance.
    Author: Ray JJ, Sznol JA, Teisch LF, Meizoso JP, Allen CJ, Namias N, Pizano LR, Sleeman D, Spector SA, Schulman CI.
    Journal: JAMA Surg; 2016 Jan; 151(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 26536059.
    Abstract:
    IMPORTANCE: The American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) is designed to measure progress, applied medical knowledge, and clinical management; results may determine promotion and fellowship candidacy for general surgery residents. Evaluations are mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education but are administered at the discretion of individual institutions and are not standardized. It is unclear whether the ABSITE and evaluations form a reasonable assessment of resident performance. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether favorable evaluations are associated with ABSITE performance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of preliminary and categorical residents in postgraduate years (PGYs) 1 through 5 training in a single university-based general surgery program from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2014, who took the ABSITE. EXPOSURES: Evaluation overall performance and subset evaluation performance in the following categories: patient care, technical skills, problem-based learning, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, systems-based practice, and medical knowledge. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Passing the ABSITE (≥30th percentile) and ranking in the top 30% of scores at our institution. RESULTS: The study population comprised residents in PGY 1 (n = 44), PGY 2 (n = 31), PGY 3 (n = 26), PGY 4 (n = 25), and PGY 5 (n = 24) during the 4-year study period (N = 150). Evaluations had less variation than the ABSITE percentile (SD = 5.06 vs 28.82, respectively). Neither annual nor subset evaluation scores were significantly associated with passing the ABSITE (n = 102; for annual evaluation, odds ratio = 0.949; 95% CI, 0.884-1.019; P = .15) or receiving a top 30% score (n = 45; for annual evaluation, odds ratio = 1.036; 95% CI, 0.964-1.113; P = .33). There was no difference in mean evaluation score between those who passed vs failed the ABSITE (mean [SD] evaluation score, 91.77 [5.10] vs 93.04 [4.80], respectively; P = .14) or between those who received a top 30% score vs those who did not (mean [SD] evaluation score, 92.78 [4.83] vs 91.92 [5.11], respectively; P = .33). There was no correlation between annual evaluation score and ABSITE percentile (r(2) = 0.014; P = .15), percentage correct unadjusted for PGY level (r(2) = 0.019; P = .09), or percentage correct adjusted for PGY level (r(2) = 0.429; P = .91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Favorable evaluations do not correlate with ABSITE scores, nor do they predict passing. Evaluations do not show much discriminatory ability. It is unclear whether individual resident evaluations and ABSITE scores fully assess competency in residents or allow comparisons to be made across programs. Creation of a uniform evaluation system that encompasses the necessary subjective feedback from faculty with the objective measure of the ABSITE is warranted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]