Original Article

Relation of Residency Selection Factors to Subsequent Orthopaedic In-training Examination Performance

Authors: Kelly D. Carmichael, MD, James B. Westmoreland, MD, John A. Thomas, MD, Rita M. Patterson, PhD

Abstract

Objectives: Orthopaedic surgery remains one of the most competitive specialties, with more than a 99% match fill rate in the past several years. An oversupply of qualified applicants leads to intense competition for these residency spots, allowing program directors to be more selective in choosing their future residents. Although many previous studies have documented factors important to program directors in the admission process, less is known about how preselection factors correlate with subsequent performance in a residency program.


Methods: The relation of both demographic and academic factors with subsequent performance on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) were studied. These factors include United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step I scores, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, research publications, age entering residency, marital status, and medical school affiliation.


Results: In this study, the only statistically significant correlations to OITE scores were USMLE step I performance and marital status. Those residents who had previously scored above 220 on the USMLE step I had higher average OITE scores than those scoring below 220. Residents who were married also had higher average OITE scores. A trend with regard to AOA status also was found, with residents scoring slightly higher on the OITE if they were members of AOA.


Conclusions: Few preresidency variables correlate to success during an orthopaedic residency.


Key Points


* Few preresidency variables correlate to success during an orthopaedic residency.


* Age, sex, Alpha Omega Alpha status, research, and medical school affiliation do not correlate with subsequent success on orthopaedic in-training examination scores.


* Having United States Medical Licensing Examination scores above 220 and being married did correlate to higher Orthopaedic In-Training Examination percentile scores.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Clark R, Evans EB, Ivey FM, et al. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful applicants to orthopaedic residency training programs. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1989;241:257–263.
 
2. Bernstein AD, Jazrawi LM, Elbeshbeshy B, et al. Orthopaedic resident selection criteria. J Bone Joint Surg 2002;84:2090–2096.
 
3. Wagoner NE, Suriano JR. Factors used by program directors to select residents. J Med Educ1986;61:10–21.
 
4. Wagoner NE, Suriano JR. Recommendations for changing the resident selection process based on a survey of program directors. Acad Med 1992;67:459–465.
 
5. Reede JY. Predictors of success in medicine. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1999;362:72–77.
 
6. Dirschl DR, Dahners LE, Adams GL, et al. Correlating selection criteria with subsequent performance as residents. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2002;399:265–271.
 
7. Simon MA. The education of future orthopaedists: déjà vu. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83A:1416–1423.
 
8. White AA. Resident selection: are we putting the cart before the horse? Clin Orthop Rel Res2002;99:255–259.
 
9. Dale JA, Schmitt CM, Crosby LA. Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants. J Bone Joint Surg 1999;81A:1679–1681.
 
10. Ronai AK, Golmon ME, Shanks CA, et al. Relationship between past academic performance and results on specialty in-training examinations. J Med Educ 1984;59:341–344.