Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2020; 12(02): e251-e254
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718568
Research Article

Ophthalmology Program Director Perspectives of Scoring Step 1 Pass/Fail

Saif A. Hamdan 
1   Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Alan T. Makhoul
1   Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Brian C. Drolet
2   Department of Plastic Surgery, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Jennifer L. Lindsey
4   Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Janice C. Law
5   Division of Retina, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was recently announced to be reported as binary as early as 2022. The general perception among program directors (PDs) in all specialties has largely been negative, but the perspective within ophthalmology remains uncharacterized.

Objective This article characterizes ophthalmology residency PDs' perspectives regarding the impact of pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring on the residency application process.

Methods A validated 19-item anonymous survey was electronically distributed to 111 PDs of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited ophthalmology training programs.

Results Fifty-six PDs (50.5%) completed the survey. The median age of respondents was 48 years and the majority were male (71.4%); the average tenure as PD was 7.1 years. Only 6 (10.7%) PDs reported the change of the USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail was a good idea. Most PDs (92.9%) indicated that this will make it more difficult to objectively compare applicants, and many (69.6%) did not agree that the change would improve medical student well-being. The majority (82.1%) indicated that there will be an increased emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, and many (70.4%) felt that medical school reputation will be more important in application decisions.

Conclusion Most ophthalmology PDs who responded to the survey do not support binary Step 1 scoring. Many raised concerns regarding shifted overemphasis on Step 2 CK, uncertain impact on student well-being, and potential to disadvantage certain groups of medical students including international medical graduates. These concerns highlight the need for reform in the ophthalmology application process.

Keywords

medical education - residency selection - SF match - match process - USMLE - Step 1 - program directors


Publication History

Received: 23 June 2020

Accepted: 03 September 2020

Article published online:
26 November 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Match SF. Ophthalmology Residency Match Summary Report. 2019 . Available at: https://www.sfmatch.org/PDFFilesDisplay/Ophthalmology_Residency_Stats_2019.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National Resident Matching Program, Characteristics of U.S. Allopathic Seniors Who Matched to Their Preferred Specialty in the 2018 Main Residency Match. October 2019
    PubMed
  • 3 Nallasamy S, Uhler T, Nallasamy N, Tapino PJ, Volpe NJ. Ophthalmology resident selection: current trends in selection criteria and improving the process. Ophthalmology 2010; 117 (05) 1041-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Behunin N, Hill C, Lotpifour M, Scott IU. The ophthalmology residency program director survey: applicant qualities affecting the invitation to interview and rank position. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017; 58 (08) 5052
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Makhoul AT, Pontell ME, Ganesh Kumar N, Drolet BC. Objective measures needed - program directors' perspectives on a pass/fail USMLE Step 1. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (25) 2389-2392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Andolsek KM. One small step for Step 1. Acad Med 2019; 94 (03) 309-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Summary Report and Preliminary Recommendations from the Invitational Conference on USMLE Scoring (InCUS), March 11–12; 2019, United States Medical Licensing Examination. Accessed March 29, 2020
    PubMed
  • 8 Rubright JD, Jodoin M, Barone MA. Examining demographics, prior academic performance, and United States Medical Licensing Examination scores. Acad Med 2019; 94 (03) 364-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gauer JL, Jackson JB. Relationships of demographic variables to USMLE physician licensing exam scores: a statistical analysis on five years of medical student data. Adv Med Educ Pract 2018; 9: 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yousuf SJ, Jones LS. Ophthalmology residency match outcomes for 2011. Ophthalmology 2012; 119 (03) 642-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee AG, Golnik KC, Oetting TA. et al. Re-engineering the resident applicant selection process in ophthalmology: a literature review and recommendations for improvement. Surv Ophthalmol 2008; 53 (02) 164-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar