Evaluation of Cytology Proficiency Tests in a Workshop Setting: Implications for Reproducibility

Untitled

“…[ 8 ] This interobserver variation may affect the outcome of (PT) in a manner unrelated to actual proficiency of examining slides. For example, a study by Valente and Schantz [ 9 ] examined the reproducibility of PT in a workshop setting. One slide with a reference interpretation of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) was given that interpretation by examinees 66.7% of the time, whereas two other slides with the same reference interpretation were given the that interpretation by examinees 92% and 94% of the time.…”

“…The study by Valente and Schantz[ 9 ] identified some of the inequities in the grading scheme. The passing scores found in their workshop setting were comparable to the first administration of the Maryland Proficiency Test.…”

“…Another area of obvious concern centers around the "A" choice- Unsatisfactory (Table 1 ). Only VERY obvious unsatisfactory cases elicited the desired response with only 60% of respondents in Valente and Schantz's [ 9 ] study getting the correct answer. In the CAP PAP program, less than 50% of the slides accepted into the program using the three Board certified anatomic pathologists' rule achieved field validation.…”