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。

IF 1.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Urology Practice Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000761
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:泌尿外科住院医师的项目主任在选择面试候选人时,历来重视美国医师执照考试第一步。2022年1月,3位数的第一步分数改为及格/不及格,旨在减轻考试准备的负担,促进更全面的审查,但这样做却取消了一个关键的客观指标。本研究探讨了泌尿外科候选人面试的优先选择标准。方法:对150个国家认可的泌尿外科住院医师项目的项目主任进行调查,包括4个领域的26个因素:(1)学术,(2)课外活动,(3)虚拟礼仪,(4)申请人多样性。受访者将每个因素按1到10的等级(从不重要到最重要)进行评分,并提供免费文本选项以补充输入。结果:46位项目主管完成了调查。排名前5位的因素是(1)泌尿科推荐信(平均值±标准差,8.58±1.57),(2)信号传导(8.56±1.69),(3)虚拟专业度(7.33±2.71),(4)完成主任项目的子实习(7.22±2.20),(5)虚拟会议期间开镜(7.04±2.75)。值得注意的是,Step 2得分≥250(5.84±2.45)在9个学术因素中排名第6。结论:向合格/不合格第1步的转变重塑了泌尿外科申请人的选择,其中第2步评分似乎并没有取代第1步作为主要指标。这些变化的含义,包括它们对整体申请审查和候选人选择的影响,仍有待确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urology Practice
Urology Practice UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
163
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信