Evaluating the quality, clinical relevance, and resident perception of the radiation oncology in-training examination: A national survey

被引:4
|
作者
Kim, Hyun [1 ]
Bar Ad, Voichita [1 ]
McAna, John [2 ]
Dicker, Adam P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Dept Radiat Oncol, 111 South 11th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Coll Populat Hlth, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
ASSOCIATION; PERFORMANCE; VALIDITY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.prro.2015.09.013
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: The yearly radiation oncology in-training examination (ITE) by the American College of Radiology is a widely used, norm-referenced educational assessment, with high test reliability and psychometric performance. We distributed a national survey to evaluate the academic radiation oncology community's perception of the ITE. Methods and Materials: In June 2014, a 7-question online survey was distributed via e-mail to current radiation oncology residents, program directors, and attending physicians who had completed residency in the past 5 years or junior attendings. Survey questions were designed on a 5-point Likert scale. Sign test was performed with P=.05 considered statistically different from neutral. Results: Thirty-one program directors (33.3%), 114 junior attendings (35.4%), and 225 residents (41.2%) responded. Junior attendings and program directors reported that the ITE directly contributed to their preparation for the American Board of Radiology written certification (P=.050 and .004, respectively). Residents did not perceive the examination as an accurate assessment of relevant clinical and scientific knowledge (P<.000) and feel the quality assurance is insufficient in its current form (P<.0001). Residents and junior attendings agree that there are factual errors, and unclear questions/answers (P<.0001 and .04, respectively). Free response suggestions included: less questions on rare disease sites (16.4%), more relevance to clinical practice (15.4%), avoiding questions that discriminate between a few percentage points (11.8%), and designing the test similar to the written certification examination (9.2%). Conclusions: Despite high examination reliability and psychometric performance, resident and attending physicians report a need for improved quality assurance and clinical relevance in the ITE. Although the current examination allows limited feedback, establishing a venue for individualized feedback may allow continual and timely improvement of the ITE. Adopting a criterion-referenced examination may further increase resident investment in and utilization of this valuable learning tool. (C) 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:44 / 49
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Radiation Oncology Training in Poland: Results of a National Survey (2007)
    Niemiec, M.
    Kepka, L.
    Maciejewski, B.
    Lindner, B.
    Bujko, K.
    [J]. CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2009, 21 (01) : 74 - 75
  • [22] RADIATION ONCOLOGY TRAINING IN POLAND: RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SURVEY (2007).
    Niemiec, M.
    Kepka, L.
    Maciejewski, B.
    Lindner, B.
    Bujko, K.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 88 : S490 - S490
  • [23] Radiation Oncology Resident Quality by National Resident Matching Program Metrics From 2007 to 2018
    Chowdhary, Mudit
    Parikh, Simul D.
    Lee, Anna
    Tendulkar, Rahul D.
    Royce, Trevor J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2021, 109 (02): : 324 - 328
  • [24] Non-Clinical Time in Radiation Oncology Residency Programs: A National Survey of Program Structure and Resident Perspectives
    Parekh, A.
    Culbert, M.
    Brower, J. V., Jr.
    Yang, G. Q.
    Golden, D. W.
    Amdur, R. J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 105 (01): : E153 - E153
  • [25] Quality of training in radiation oncology in Germany - Results of a 2006 Survey
    Semrau, Robert
    Hansemann, Katja
    Adam, Markus
    Andratschke, Nicolaus
    Brunner, Thomas
    Heinzelmann, Frank
    Hildebrandt, Guido
    Vordermark, Dirk
    Zips, Daniel
    [J]. STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2008, 184 (05) : 239 - 244
  • [26] Clinical Oncology Training in the UK: Results of a National Survey (2007)
    Saunders, D.
    Ajaz, M.
    Staples, E.
    Butler, C.
    Drinkwater, K.
    Spooner, D.
    [J]. CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2009, 21 (01) : 75 - 76
  • [27] Proton education for clinical oncology training: 2021 national UK survey
    Wilson, Fiona
    Pan, Shermaine
    [J]. CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 34 : E18 - E18
  • [28] Importance of patient examination to clinical quality assurance in head and neck radiation oncology
    Rosenthal, David I.
    Asper, Joshua A.
    Barker, Jerry L., Jr.
    Garden, Adam S.
    Chao, K. S. Clifford
    Morrison, William H.
    Weber, Randal S.
    Ang, K. Kian
    [J]. HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2006, 28 (11): : 967 - 973
  • [29] RESULTS OF THE 2005-2008 ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENTS IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY SURVEY OF CHIEF RESIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES: CLINICAL TRAINING AND RESIDENT WORKING CONDITIONS
    Gondi, Vinai
    Bernard, Johnny Ray, Jr.
    Jabbari, Siavash
    Keam, Jennifer
    Bernstein, Karen L. de Amorim
    Dad, Luqman K.
    Li, Linna
    Poppe, Matthew M.
    Strauss, Jonathan B.
    Chollet, Casey T.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2011, 81 (04): : 1120 - 1127
  • [30] Quality of Radiation Oncology Training in Germany: Results from the 2017 survey of the young DEGRO
    Dietzel, C.
    Jablonska, K.
    Niyazi, M.
    Gauer, T.
    Ebert, N.
    Ostheimer, C.
    Krug, D.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2018, 127 : S908 - S909