Search

Background: Certification by the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (ABPMR) requires passing both a written multiple choice examination (Part I) and an oral examination (Part II), but it has been unclear whether the two examinations measure the same or different dimensions of knowledge., Objective: To evaluate the concordance between the Part I and Part II examinations for ABPMR initial certification with regard to candidate performance on the examinations and their subsets. Our question is whether the Part II examination provides additional assessment of a candidate beyond what Part I provides., Design: Retrospective psychometric evaluation of deidentified board examination scores., Setting: ABPMR database of Part I and Part II examination scores., Participants: Candidates for the ABPMR Part I and Part II examinations after 2005, with a more detailed analysis of candidates for the Part I examination from 2014 to 2016. Examination scores of candidates who took the Part II examination both before and after the examination was standardized in 2005 were also used for an additional analysis., Methods: Correlations, simple linear regressions, and principal components analysis., Main Outcome Measurements: Correlation coefficients, variance analysis, and unexplained variance in the principal components analysis., Results: There is a weak to moderate correlation between performance on the Part I and Part II examinations: r = 0.33, P < .001. There is an additional dimension of assessment that is demonstrated on the Part II examination, with this being primarily in the domains of systems-based practice and interpersonal communication skills., Conclusion: The Part I and Part II examinations, although with some overlap, contribute different and meaningful components to the overall evaluation of candidates for board certification in PM&R., Level of Evidence: III., (© 2019 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Objective: Unconscious bias may result in a prejudicial evaluation of another person and lead to unfair treatment. Potential gender bias risk exists in the scoring process on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation oral examination (Part II) because of the face-to-face interactions between candidates and examiners. This study was undertaken to determine whether performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination differed based on candidate gender or configuration of examiner/candidate gender pairings. The impact of examiner unconscious bias training on candidate performance was also assessed., Design: This is a retrospective observational study of first-time Part II physical medicine and rehabilitation certification examination test takers between 2013 and 2018., Results: There were significant differences in pass rates (men 84%, women 89%) and mean scaled scores (men 6.56, women 6.81) between men and women (P < 0.001) with the biggest domain score differences in data acquisition and interpersonal and communication skills. Implementation of examiner unconscious bias training did not impact candidate performance., Conclusions: Women candidates scored higher and had a higher pass rate than men candidates overall on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination. This difference does not seem to be due to scoring gender bias by the Part II examiners or due to candidate aptitude as measured on the Part I examination.