Katherine Wu, Emily Huang, Laura Thompson, Kathleen C Kobashi
{"title":"在美国医学执业资格考试步骤 1 及格/不及格时代,泌尿外科住院医师匹配项目主任的选择标准。","authors":"Katherine Wu, Emily Huang, Laura Thompson, Kathleen C Kobashi","doi":"10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Program directors of urology residencies have historically weighted the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 heavily to select interview candidates. In January 2022, the 3-digit Step 1 score changed to pass/fail, aiming to reduce the burden of examination preparation and promote more holistic review, yet, in doing so, abolished a key objective metric. This study examines the criteria now prioritized in the selection of urology candidates to interview.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was distributed to program directors of 150 nationally accredited urology residency programs, consisting of 26 factors across 4 domains: (1) academics, (2) extracurriculars, (3) virtual etiquette, and (4) applicant diversity. Respondents rated each factor on a 1 to 10 scale (from no importance to most important), with free-text options for additional input.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-six program directors completed the survey. The top 5 factors were (1) urology letters of recommendation (mean ± SD, 8.58 ± 1.57), (2) signaling (8.56 ± 1.69), (3) virtual professionalism (7.33 ± 2.71), (4) completion of a subinternship at the director's program (7.22 ± 2.20), and (5) camera on during virtual meetings (7.04 ± 2.75). Notably, a Step 2 score ≥ 250 (5.84 ± 2.45) ranked sixth among 9 academic factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The shift to a pass/fail Step 1 has reshaped urology applicant selection, where Step 2 scores do not seem to replace Step 1 as a primary metric. The implications of these changes, including their impact on holistic application review and candidate selection, remain to be determined.</p>","PeriodicalId":45220,"journal":{"name":"Urology Practice","volume":" ","pages":"298-302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Program Directors' Selection Criteria for Urology Residency Match in a United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Era.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Wu, Emily Huang, Laura Thompson, Kathleen C Kobashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000761\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Program directors of urology residencies have historically weighted the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 heavily to select interview candidates. In January 2022, the 3-digit Step 1 score changed to pass/fail, aiming to reduce the burden of examination preparation and promote more holistic review, yet, in doing so, abolished a key objective metric. This study examines the criteria now prioritized in the selection of urology candidates to interview.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was distributed to program directors of 150 nationally accredited urology residency programs, consisting of 26 factors across 4 domains: (1) academics, (2) extracurriculars, (3) virtual etiquette, and (4) applicant diversity. Respondents rated each factor on a 1 to 10 scale (from no importance to most important), with free-text options for additional input.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-six program directors completed the survey. The top 5 factors were (1) urology letters of recommendation (mean ± SD, 8.58 ± 1.57), (2) signaling (8.56 ± 1.69), (3) virtual professionalism (7.33 ± 2.71), (4) completion of a subinternship at the director's program (7.22 ± 2.20), and (5) camera on during virtual meetings (7.04 ± 2.75). Notably, a Step 2 score ≥ 250 (5.84 ± 2.45) ranked sixth among 9 academic factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The shift to a pass/fail Step 1 has reshaped urology applicant selection, where Step 2 scores do not seem to replace Step 1 as a primary metric. The implications of these changes, including their impact on holistic application review and candidate selection, remain to be determined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"298-302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000761\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000761","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Program Directors' Selection Criteria for Urology Residency Match in a United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Era.
Introduction: Program directors of urology residencies have historically weighted the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 heavily to select interview candidates. In January 2022, the 3-digit Step 1 score changed to pass/fail, aiming to reduce the burden of examination preparation and promote more holistic review, yet, in doing so, abolished a key objective metric. This study examines the criteria now prioritized in the selection of urology candidates to interview.
Methods: A survey was distributed to program directors of 150 nationally accredited urology residency programs, consisting of 26 factors across 4 domains: (1) academics, (2) extracurriculars, (3) virtual etiquette, and (4) applicant diversity. Respondents rated each factor on a 1 to 10 scale (from no importance to most important), with free-text options for additional input.
Results: Forty-six program directors completed the survey. The top 5 factors were (1) urology letters of recommendation (mean ± SD, 8.58 ± 1.57), (2) signaling (8.56 ± 1.69), (3) virtual professionalism (7.33 ± 2.71), (4) completion of a subinternship at the director's program (7.22 ± 2.20), and (5) camera on during virtual meetings (7.04 ± 2.75). Notably, a Step 2 score ≥ 250 (5.84 ± 2.45) ranked sixth among 9 academic factors.
Conclusions: The shift to a pass/fail Step 1 has reshaped urology applicant selection, where Step 2 scores do not seem to replace Step 1 as a primary metric. The implications of these changes, including their impact on holistic application review and candidate selection, remain to be determined.