FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4287448543> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4287448543 endingPage "e4440" @default.
• W4287448543 startingPage "e4440" @default.
• W4287448543 abstract "The recent transition of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to a pass–fail system was intended to promote student wellness. However, some have raised concerns for increased emphasis on subjective measures of performance.1 Among plastic surgery residency program directors (PDs), perceptions of the change have largely been negative.2 While long-term effects have been considered, in the immediate future, a mixture of students with numeric and passing scores will create a challenge for programs comparing applicants. In total, 40% of PDs (n = 36) completed a survey about anticipated short-term effects of the scoring change. Respondants compared the use of Step 1 in applicant evaluation in the upcoming application cycle (2022–2023) with the most recent cycle (2021–2022). (See Table, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which displays the survey questions, https://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C107.) As anticipated, numeric Step 1 scores will continue to factor into evaluations in the short term, but Step 2 scores will be of increased importance. In the next cycle, more programs will give Step 2 greater or equal weight than Step 1 (19% and 53%, respectively, up from 11% and 44%) and fewer will give Step 1 greater weight than Step 2 (28% down from 44%). Notably, a minority of PDs (11%) stated that they will no longer consider numeric Step 1 scores (Table 1). Table 1. - Relative Importance of Step 1 and Step 2 in Upcoming Application Cycles Current Application Cycle (n = 36) Upcoming Application Cycles (n = 32*) Relative weight of Step 1 and Step 2 for determining interview invitations Step 1 > Step 2 16 (44%) 9 (28%) Step 2 > Step 1 4 (11%) 6 (19%) Equally weighted 16 (44%) 17 (53%) Cutoff score for Step 1 No cutoff score 18 (50%) 17 (53%) 221–230 3 (8%) 2 (6%) 231–240 6 (17%) 4 (13%) 241–250 9 (25%) 7 (22%) >250 0 (0%) 2 (6%) Cutoff score for Step 2† No cutoff score 28 (78%) 14 (45%) 221–230 1 (3%) 7 (23%) 231–240 2 (6%) 7 (23%) 241–250 4 (11%) 2 (6%) >250 1 (3%) 1 (3%) *Four PDs responded that they will no longer consider numeric Step 1 scores in evaluating applicants.†One PD did not give a cutoff score range for Step 2 in upcoming application cycles (n = 31). In the next application cycle, twice as many of the programs surveyed will institute Step 2 cutoff scores. In the most recent cycle, 22% of PDs endorsed using a Step 2 cutoff score, while 55% anticipate having a cutoff in the next cycle. The majority of anticipated cutoff scores for Step 2 were between 221–230 (23%) and 231–240 (23%) (Table 1). Historically, mean Step 2 scores have been higher than mean Step 1 scores (eg, 256 versus 249 for matched plastic surgery applicants in 2020).3 Identical Step 2 cutoffs may in practice be more inclusive than prior Step 1 cutoffs. Similar to previous reports, letters of recommendation and previous knowledge of the applicant were ranked as the most important factors for applicant evaluation. (See Table, Supplemental Digital Content 2, which displays rankings of factors, https://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C108.)4,5 Half of PDs (53%) stated that research would carry greater weight in the next cycle (Table 2). When presented with hypothetical scenarios, a strong Step 1 score remained beneficial to applicants, whereas a low Step 1 score may not be detrimental in many cases. While 69% of PDs answered that an applicant with a high Step 1 score would be at an advantage over an applicant with a pass, only 47% of PDs stated that an applicant with a low Step 1 score would be at a disadvantage compared to a pass (Table 2). Table 2. - Hypothetical Scenarios for Applicant Evaluation and Relative Importance of Research Question PD Response (%) Do you anticipate that research experiences like research fellowships will carry more significant weight than in the past? 19 (53) With comparable Step 2 scores, will an applicant with a low Step 1 score be at a disadvantage relative to an applicant with a pass for a Step 1 score? 17 (47) With comparable Step 2 scores, will an applicant with a high Step 1 score be at an advantage relative to an applicant with a pass for a Step 1 score? 25 (69) This study suggested a gradual shift in emphasis from Step 1 to Step 2, although some programs may immediately stop considering Step 1. Importantly, over half of PDs would not view a low Step 1 score negatively. For these programs, a low Step 1 score may be considered similar to a pass. Those who performed strongly on Step 1 will benefit in most cases from having taken the examination before the switch. Disclosure The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article." @default.
• W4287448543 created "2022-07-25" @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5001882854 @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5011149578 @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5020308845 @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5023827436 @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5037931816 @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5038578611 @default.
• W4287448543 creator A5070133003 @default.
• W4287448543 date "2022-07-01" @default.
• W4287448543 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W4287448543 title "Impact of the Step 1 Scoring Change on the Upcoming Application Cycle" @default.
• W4287448543 cites W1983910353 @default.
• W4287448543 cites W3119947299 @default.
• W4287448543 cites W3125515860 @default.
• W4287448543 cites W3196919195 @default.
• W4287448543 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000004440" @default.
• W4287448543 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35923992" @default.
• W4287448543 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4287448543 type Work @default.
• W4287448543 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4287448543 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5001882854 @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5011149578 @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5020308845 @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5023827436 @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5037931816 @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5038578611 @default.
• W4287448543 hasAuthorship W4287448543A5070133003 @default.
• W4287448543 hasBestOaLocation W42874485431 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C2779741528 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C28826006 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C2993838110 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C3019136120 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C45235069 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C61797465 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C121332964 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C15744967 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C2779741528 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C28826006 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C2993838110 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C3019136120 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C33923547 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C41008148 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C45235069 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C509550671 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C61797465 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C62520636 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C71924100 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C75630572 @default.
• W4287448543 hasConceptScore W4287448543C77088390 @default.
• W4287448543 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W4287448543 hasLocation W42874485431 @default.
• W4287448543 hasLocation W42874485432 @default.
• W4287448543 hasLocation W42874485433 @default.
• W4287448543 hasLocation W42874485434 @default.
• W4287448543 hasOpenAccess W4287448543 @default.
• W4287448543 hasPrimaryLocation W42874485431 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W1980938344 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2056254149 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2359068514 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2373668538 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2385034530 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2416519807 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W3104204519 @default.
• W4287448543 hasRelatedWork W4361192658 @default.
• W4287448543 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W4287448543 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4287448543 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4287448543 workType "article" @default.