Remediation of Low ABSITE Scores

Abstract

In 2000, a program was initiated to improve American Board of Surgery In-Training Exam (ABSITE) scores below the 40th percentile (PGY-1 and -2) and the 30th percentile (PGY-3 and -5) for categorical residents. The goal of this program is to maintain scores above this standard. One faculty member was designated to meet with each resident with ABSITE scores below the standard described above. In April, individual study plans were designed with each resident, which emphasized practice questions and strategic planning for study, and the ABSITE test structure and results were reviewed. Two subsequent meetings were held between November and December to monitor progress. Emphasis was placed on minimizing the stigma of poor scores and on maximizing the efficiency of study time. If the resident scored above-standard that year, further support was not required. From 2000 to 2004, 12 (9.5%) ABSITE scores were below-standard, which resulted in 8 (20.5%) residents receiving program support 9 times. All but 1 program encounter resulted in above-standard scores the following year (improvement range, 16 to 65 percentile points; average, 34 points). Two residents had recurrent below-standard scores in subsequent years despite above-standard scores immediately after the program. One resident did not participate in the program, despite it being designated as mandatory. During the same interval, the ABSITE scores of residents not involved in the program decreased by an average of 3.7 percentile points per examination (improved scores 31 times; 39.2%, range 1 to 46, average 13.5, worse scores 45 times; 57%, range 1 to 65, average 15.2, and no change 3 times, 3.8%). An individualized program that minimizes the stigma of poor test results, the time commitment required by the residents, and maximizes the benefits of a question-based study system and the knowledge of approach to the ABSITE resulted in significant improvements in scores the next year. However, maintenance of these results needs continued evaluation because 3 residents had recurrent poor scores in subsequent years.