Reply to: CITROG (Committee on In-Training Examination for Residents in Obstetrics and Gynecology) examination remediation indicator: The next steps

Abstract

Reply to the Editor:Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Beckmann's letter. His accomplishments in the field of education in obstetrics and gynecology are well known, and his comments about our article are appreciated.The method used to identify faculty from both university and community-based residency training programs constituted our attempt to find individuals who could apply our standardized definition of a “borderline” third-year resident in obstetrics and gynecology. Indeed, the bias introduced by selecting faculty as we did is, in fact, what makes resident evaluation the unstructured process it is (i.e., each resident educator brings to the table his or her own biases as to what constitutes knowledge, skills, and attitudes appropriate for a resident at a given level). Further investigation into standardization of both formative and summative evaluations of residents in our specialty would go a long way toward addressing Beckmann's concerns. We are aware of various initiatives aimed at accomplishing these laudable goals, but data are currently lacking in this regard.With regard to the second point, the specific remediation program alluded to was an attempt to respond to questions raised by the peer-review process. We agree that remediation at any level must address the individual learner's needs and cannot be a “cookbook” solution. Ours was merely one version of remediation that the resident educator could use as a starting point in aiding the resident seemingly in need of remediation. The newly named CREOG (Committee on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology) Examination Committee (formerly the CITROG Committee) will certainly continue to address both the use and implications of its In-Training Examination.6/8/73583 Reply to the Editor:Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Beckmann's letter. His accomplishments in the field of education in obstetrics and gynecology are well known, and his comments about our article are appreciated.The method used to identify faculty from both university and community-based residency training programs constituted our attempt to find individuals who could apply our standardized definition of a “borderline” third-year resident in obstetrics and gynecology. Indeed, the bias introduced by selecting faculty as we did is, in fact, what makes resident evaluation the unstructured process it is (i.e., each resident educator brings to the table his or her own biases as to what constitutes knowledge, skills, and attitudes appropriate for a resident at a given level). Further investigation into standardization of both formative and summative evaluations of residents in our specialty would go a long way toward addressing Beckmann's concerns. We are aware of various initiatives aimed at accomplishing these laudable goals, but data are currently lacking in this regard.With regard to the second point, the specific remediation program alluded to was an attempt to respond to questions raised by the peer-review process. We agree that remediation at any level must address the individual learner's needs and cannot be a “cookbook” solution. Ours was merely one version of remediation that the resident educator could use as a starting point in aiding the resident seemingly in need of remediation. The newly named CREOG (Committee on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology) Examination Committee (formerly the CITROG Committee) will certainly continue to address both the use and implications of its In-Training Examination. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Beckmann's letter. His accomplishments in the field of education in obstetrics and gynecology are well known, and his comments about our article are appreciated. The method used to identify faculty from both university and community-based residency training programs constituted our attempt to find individuals who could apply our standardized definition of a “borderline” third-year resident in obstetrics and gynecology. Indeed, the bias introduced by selecting faculty as we did is, in fact, what makes resident evaluation the unstructured process it is (i.e., each resident educator brings to the table his or her own biases as to what constitutes knowledge, skills, and attitudes appropriate for a resident at a given level). Further investigation into standardization of both formative and summative evaluations of residents in our specialty would go a long way toward addressing Beckmann's concerns. We are aware of various initiatives aimed at accomplishing these laudable goals, but data are currently lacking in this regard. With regard to the second point, the specific remediation program alluded to was an attempt to respond to questions raised by the peer-review process. We agree that remediation at any level must address the individual learner's needs and cannot be a “cookbook” solution. Ours was merely one version of remediation that the resident educator could use as a starting point in aiding the resident seemingly in need of remediation. The newly named CREOG (Committee on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology) Examination Committee (formerly the CITROG Committee) will certainly continue to address both the use and implications of its In-Training Examination. 6/8/73583