Mp17-08 Program Directors’ Selection Criteria for Urology Residency Match in a Usmle Step 1 Pass/Fail Era

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research I (MP17)1 May 2024MP17-08 PROGRAM DIRECTORS' SELECTION CRITERIA FOR UROLOGY RESIDENCY MATCH IN A USMLE STEP 1 PASS/FAIL ERA Katherine Wu, Emily Huang, Laura Thompson, and Kathleen Kobashi Katherine WuKatherine Wu , Emily HuangEmily Huang , Laura ThompsonLaura Thompson , and Kathleen KobashiKathleen Kobashi View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008628.15460.84.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Program directors (PD) of urology residencies have historically heavily relied on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to select interview candidates during the urology match process. In January 2022, USMLE Step 1 scoring was transitioned to pass/fail-only in order to reduce the burden of exam preparation and create a more holistic resident selection process, thereby abolishing a cornerstone of objective criteria. Its effect on the application process is unknown. In this study, we seek to understand the criteria PDs are now using to evaluate urology candidates in light of this change. METHODS: A validated survey was distributed nationally via email to PDs of the 150 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited urology residency programs. The questionnaire included four components which PDs rated on a scale of 1-10 (no importance to most important) for selecting applicants to interview: (1) academic factors, (2) extracurricular factors, (3) virtual etiquette, and (4) applicant diversity. RESULTS: A total of 46 PDs completed the survey, for a total response rate of 30.67%. The top five factors (highest average scores across all four survey components) were (1) urology letters of recommendation (average score ±SD, 8.58±1.57), (2) signaling (8.56±1.69), (3) professionalism in virtual meetings (7.33±2.71), (4) completion of a urology sub-internship at the PD's program (7.22±2.20), and (5) having their camera on during virtual meetings (7.04±2.75). Interestingly, a USMLE Step 2 score ≥250 (5.84±2.45) ranked 6th of 9 academic factors. Free text responses highlighted additional factors PDs considered in their evaluation that were not mentioned in the four survey components. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of USMLE Step 1 scores has impacted how PDs select applicants for urology match and, in turn, the manner in which medical students must prepare their applications. Based on our results, USMLE Step 2 scores did not appear to substitute for USMLE Step 1 scores as a filter for candidates. In fact, the transition to pass/fail-only scoring seems to have had its intended effect, as residency PDs appear to be evaluating candidates more holistically. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e293 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Katherine Wu More articles by this author Emily Huang More articles by this author Laura Thompson More articles by this author Kathleen Kobashi More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...