Predictors of success on the written anesthesiology board certification examination

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether information available prior to and during anesthesia residency training can predict American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) Part 1 (Written) performance and help identify anesthesia residents at risk for failure. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 97 anesthesiology residents' academic files at a single Midwestern residency program. ABA Part 1 score was used as the dependent variable. Categorical demographic predictor variables included gender, under-represented minority status, and type of medical degree. Quantitative academic predictor variables included first-attempt scores on United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Steps 1 and 2, annual ABA In-Training Exam (ITE) scores, and biannual Basic Science Examination (BSE) scores. Predictors that correlated significantly with the dependent variable were entered into stepwise linear regression analyses. Results:In our analyses, only the USMLE Step 2 score was a significant pre-residency predictor (B=0.169; SE=0.031, p<0.001). Scores on ITEs were significant predictors at every time point. In the final regression model using all available measures during residency, the most recent ITE (B = 0.627; SE=0.090; p<0.001) and BSE (B=0.096; SE = 0.047; p=0.046) scores were significant predictors. The model accounted for 52% of the variance in the outcome variable, with 50% of the variance explained by ITE score alone. The model had a specificity of 0.83 and a sensitivity of 0.82 for predicting passing the ABA Part 1 exam. Conclusions: First-attempt scores on the USMLE Step 2 examination and the CA-2 ITE are moderately strong predictors of anesthesiology board examination performance, and may help target residents who are at risk of failing.

CREOG In-Training Examination Results: Contemporary Use to Predict ABOG Written Examination Outcomes

“…Another study of 194 internal medicine residents to develop a predictive tool found that ITE scores correlated in all PGYs with the best predictive value in PGY-3, 3 and a study of 97 anesthesiology residents found that the ITE was a strong predictor of passing the written board examination. 4 Both studies, and their findings, were similar to ours.…”

Does the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Self‐Assessment Examination for Residents Predict the Chances of Passing the Part 1 Board Certification Examination?

“…All first‐time test takers of the part 1 ABPMR‐CE during the 5‐year period from 2010 to 2014 who took at least 1 SAE‐R in the PGY3 or PGY4 (final) year of training were included in the sample. PGY 2 scores were not included because residents at that level of training would have had only 6 months of clinical training, because of wide variation in clinical experiences across residency programs in the first 6 months of training, and because previous publications have noted the strongest correlation for later years in training [1,6,7]. The ABPMR provided the AAPM&R with the names and residency programs of all first‐time test‐takers of the part 1 ABPMR‐CE in the years 2010 through 2014.…”

“…In the United States, many medical specialties offer residents the opportunity to take a national examination for self‐assessment purposes, and some have reported on the relationship between in‐training examinations and board certification [1‐10]. In some specialties, the examination is administered by the certifying board [1,3,7] and in others by a specialty society [2,4‐6,8‐10].…”

Predictors of success on the American Board for Certification’s prosthetics certification examination

“…This was not entirely surprising, since 6 of 11 studies summarized in the literature review that included gender as a predictor variable did not find it to be statistically significant. 9,[19][20][21][22][23] The studies that did find statistically significant relationships observed that males performed better than females. 16,18,[24][25][26] However, further analysis revealed that the studies that reported statistical significance tended to have larger sample sizes, ranging from 273 to 5208.…”

“…16,18,[24][25][26] However, further analysis revealed that the studies that reported statistical significance tended to have larger sample sizes, ranging from 273 to 5208. 16,18,[24][25][26] The studies that did not report statistical significance by gender had sample sizes ranging from 77 to 175, 19,20,22,23 with the exception being one study with a sample size of 505. 9 It is unclear whether statistically significant relationship by gender might be observed on the prosthetics certification examination if a larger sample size was available to study.…”