579 - Correlation between In-Training Examination Scores and Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Boards Pass Rate

Poster Number: 579
Publication Number: 579.117

Imran N. Mir, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, United States; Mackenzie S. Frost, Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, Ardmore, PA, United States; Luc P. Brion, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, United States

Background: Each year, fellows in accredited Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Fellowship training programs take the Subspecialty In-Training Examinations (ITEs) as a self-assessment instrument. The ITE is similar to the ABP NPM Certifying Examination. Although, few studies have confirmed the predictive validity of the ITEs in general pediatrics, no study has been done for Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine.

Objective: This study investigates whether the results of the Subspecialty ITE can predict first attempt success in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine (NPM) Certifying Examination conducted by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP).

Design/Methods: First-time takers of the certifying examination over an 18-year period who had completed their fellowship at UT Southwestern Medical Center were included in the sample (n= 49). Statistics included regression analysis and Fisher’s exact test to analyze the predictive value of the ITE.

Results: There was a significant correlation between z-scores of the ITE and z-scores of ABP NPM certifying examination. The correlation between NPM boards z-scores and average ITE z-scores was 0.6, and that between NPM Boards z-scores and the average ITE z-scores in the first and second year of fellowship was 0.56. In contrast with other studies in general pediatrics, the correlation did not improve with the year of training. All NPM fellows with z-scores >-0.5 (n=38/38, 100%) passed their NPM Board examinations in the first attempt vs. those with average z-scores < -0.5 (6/10, 60%, P=0.001).Conclusion(s): In our fellowship training program, average ITE z-scores in the first two years of training can be used to advise advanced physician trainees at risk for Board failures on first attempt. If these data are validated in other NPM fellowship programs, it has a potential to become a tool for highlighting the fellows who are at risk for NPM board failures and creating structured tutorials for them. This study continues to support the ITE as an assessment tool for program directors, as well as a means of providing advanced physician trainees with feedback regarding their acquisition of NPM knowledge.