Slick G L
Department of Internal Medicine, Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, IL 60615, USA.
J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1997 Jul;97(7):417-22. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.1997.97.7.417.
The purpose of this study was to determine if internal medicine residency type or location was associated with differences in performance of candidates as measured by the internal medicine certifying examination. Included in the study were all first-time taker candidates for the 1986 to 1996 American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine certifying examinations in internal medicine. Group analysis was performed based on the type of residency track leading to board eligibility: (1) traditional internship plus 3 years of internal medicine residency; (2) traditional internship plus 2 years of internal medicine residency and 1 year of subspecialty training; (3) specialty track internship plus 2 years of internal medicine residency; and (4) traditional internship plus 3 years of allopathic internal medicine residency. Subgroup analysis of the subspecialty track group was performed to determine if any particular subspecialty-trained subgroup performed better than the others. Results indicate that all groups had similar scores and pass rates except for the allopathic-trained residents, whose scores and pass rates were lower. Subgroup analysis of the subspecialty-trained candidates revealed that procedure-oriented subspecialty candidates performed similar to non-procedure-oriented candidates. No gender differences were noted in scores or pass rates. It is concluded that the overall performance of candidates is equivalent for each of the residency training tracks developed by the American College of Osteopathic Internists. Future performance on the recertification examination will need to be tracked to determine if these trends continue for practicing internists.
本研究的目的是确定内科住院医师培训类型或地点是否与通过内科资格考试衡量的考生表现差异相关。该研究纳入了1986年至1996年首次参加美国骨病内科医师委员会内科资格考试的所有考生。根据获得委员会资格的住院医师培训类型进行分组分析：（1）传统实习加3年内科住院医师培训；（2）传统实习加2年内科住院医师培训和1年专科培训；（3）专科培训实习加2年内科住院医师培训；以及（4）传统实习加3年对抗疗法内科住院医师培训。对专科培训组进行亚组分析，以确定是否有任何特定的专科培训亚组表现优于其他亚组。结果表明，除了接受对抗疗法培训的住院医师分数和通过率较低外，所有组的分数和通过率相似。对接受专科培训的考生进行亚组分析发现，以手术为导向的专科考生与非手术导向的考生表现相似。在分数或通过率方面未发现性别差异。结论是，美国骨病内科医师学会制定的每种住院医师培训路径的考生总体表现相当。需要跟踪重新认证考试的未来表现，以确定这些趋势是否在执业内科医师中持续存在。
