PubMed · 11434490
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Donelan. 2001. Evaluating and improving your classes.. https://doi.org/10.1580/1080-6032(2001)012%5B0134%3Aeaiyc%5D2.0.co%3B2
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Surgical programs use the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) in several ways, including for promotion and retention decisions. The purpose of this study was to identify the combination of factors that explain residents' successful performance on the ABSITE. METHODS: Fifty-one surgical residents completed questionnaires, and information was gathered about their previous ABSITE performance, anxiety, probationary status, amount of study, amount of sleep before examination, confidence, and attendance at conference. RESULTS: An analysis of the data for those with experience taking the examination (n = 34) indicated that the combination of conference attendance (26.3%), previous performance (16.5%), probationary status (10.4%), amount of sleep (9.8%), and amount of study (8%) were significant in explaining a total of 71% of the variance in ABSITE scores. Amount of study (+0.32, P = 0.011), confidence (+0.36, P = 0.005), and conference attendance (+0.51, P = 0.001) were significantly correlated with ABSITE performance. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors contribute to residents' successful ABSITE performance. These findings may lead to improved examination performance and application of knowledge, both during residency and throughout their career.
BACKGROUND: Interview assessments of surgical residency candidates may be biased by prior knowledge of objective data. METHODS: Each candidate (site 1: n = 88; site 2: n = 44) underwent two interviews, one by faculty members informed only of a candidate's medical school, the second with prior knowledge of the complete application. Interviewers (site 1: n = 28; site 2: n = 14) independently rated candidates overall and on nine qualitative characteristics. RESULTS: At site 1 only, overall ratings were significantly more favorable for unblinded than blinded interviews (23.0 +/- 17.7 versus 32.6 +/- 23.1, P < 0.01). Blinded and unblinded overall ratings correlated -0.01 (P = 0.90) and 0.31 (P = 0.05) at sites 1 and 2, respectively. At site 1 only, overall ratings correlated significantly with USMLE scores, but in opposite directions for blinded (r = 0.32, P = 0.003) versus unblinded interviews (r = -0.32, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Interview assessments may be influenced by objective data, and faculty and program variables. The value of blinded interviewing may vary as a function of individual program characteristics.