Evaluation of Pediatric Questions on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination-An Update

被引:9
|
作者
Murphy, Robert F. [1 ]
Nunez, Leah [2 ]
Barfield, William R. [1 ]
Mooney, James F., III [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ South Carolina, Dept Orthopaed, 96 Jonathan Lucas St,CSB 708, Charleston, SC 29492 USA
[2] Med Univ South Carolina, Coll Med, Charleston, SC 29492 USA
关键词
pediatric orthopaedics; Orthopaedic In-Training Examination; taxonomy; EXAMINATION OITE; SECTION; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1097/BPO.0000000000000913
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Pediatric orthopaedics is tested frequently on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE). The most recent data on the pediatrics section of the OITE were generated from content 10 years old. The purpose of this study is to assess the pediatric orthopaedic questions on the 2011 to 2014 OITE, and to compare question categories and cognitive taxonomy with previous data. Methods: Four years (2011 to 2014) of OITE questions, answers, and references were reviewed. The number of pediatric questions per year was recorded, as well as presence of a clinical photo or imaging modality. Each question was categorized and assigned a cognitive taxonomy level. Categories included: knowledge; knowledge-treatment modalities; diagnosis; diagnosis/recognition of associated conditions; diagnosis/further studies; and diagnosis/treatment. Cognitive taxonomy levels included: simple recall, interpretation of data, and advanced problem-solving. Results: The 3 most commonly covered topics were upper extremity trauma (17.4%), scoliosis (10.1%), and developmental dysplasia of the hip (5.7%). Compared with previous data, the percentage of pediatric questions was constant (13% vs. 14%). Categorically, the more recent OITE examinations contained significantly fewer questions testing simple knowledge (19% vs. 39%, P=0.0047), and significantly more questions testing knowledge of treatment modalities (17% vs. 9%, P=0.016) and diagnosis with associated conditions (19% vs. 9%, P=0.0034). Regarding cognitive taxonomy, there was a significant increase in the average number of questions that required advanced problem-solving (57% vs. 46%, P=0.048). Significantly more questions utilized clinical photographs and imaging studies (62% vs. 48%, P=0.012). The most common reference materials provided to support correct responses included Lovell and Winter's Pediatric Orthopaedics (25.7%) and the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (23.4%). Conclusions: Although the percentage of pediatric questions on the OITE has remained essentially constant, the percentage of questions requiring advanced problem-solving or interpretation of images has increased significantly in the past 10 years. Knowledge of question type and content may be helpful for those involved in resident education and in the development of didactic pediatric orthopaedic curricula.
引用
收藏
页码:E394 / E397
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The Changing Nature of the Oncology Section of the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination
    Schultz, Emily M.
    Frisby, Justin C.
    Miskiel, Sandra A.
    Patel, Deep K.
    Mulcahey, Mary K.
    Kim, Tae Won B.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2020, 28 (12) : E532 - E539
  • [22] Orthopaedic In-Training Examination An Analysis of the Sports Medicine Section
    Osbahr, Daryl C.
    Cross, Michael B.
    Bedi, Asheesh
    Nguyen, Joseph T.
    Allen, Answorth A.
    Altchek, David W.
    Dines, Joshua S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2011, 39 (03): : 532 - 537
  • [23] Orthopaedic in-training examination scores: A correlation with USMLE results
    Black, KP
    Azbug, JM
    Chinchilli, VM
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2006, 88A (03): : 671 - 676
  • [24] Analysis of the Basic Science Section of the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination
    Sheibani-Rad, Shahin
    Arnoczky, Steven Paul
    Walter, Norman E.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2012, 35 (08) : E1251 - E1255
  • [25] Utility of ChatGPT as a preparation tool for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination
    Mendiratta, Dhruv
    Herzog, Isabel
    Singh, Rohan
    Para, Ashok
    Joshi, Tej
    Vosbikian, Michael
    Kaushal, Neil
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2025, 12 (01)
  • [26] Recent Trends in Spine Topics on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    D'Antonio, Nicholas D.
    Heard, Jeremy C.
    Kaye, I. David
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Saxena, Arjun
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2022, 30 (22) : E1467 - E1473
  • [27] Effect of Remote Proctoring of the Orthopaedic In-training Examination on Scores
    Wongworawat, M. Daniel
    Incrocci, Maria
    Crumlish, Christina Fulgaro
    Klena, Joel
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS GLOBAL RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2022, 6 (02):
  • [28] Orthopaedic In-Training Examination: History, Perspective, and Tips for Residents
    Le, Hai, V
    Wick, Joseph B.
    Haus, Brian M.
    Dyer, George S. M.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2021, 29 (09) : E427 - E437
  • [29] Orthopaedic In-Training Examination Resources and Residency Training for the Foot and Ankle Domain
    Janney, Cory F.
    Kunzler, Daniel
    Safavi, Pejma Shazadeh
    Panchbhavi, Vinod
    FOOT & ANKLE SPECIALIST, 2019, 12 (02) : 146 - 152
  • [30] Does a Weekly Didactic Conference Improve Resident Performance on the Pediatric Domain of the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination?
    Franklin, Corinna C.
    Bosch, Patrick P.
    Grudziak, Jan S.
    Dede, Ozgur
    Ramirez, Rey N.
    Mendelson, Steven A.
    Ward, W. Timothy
    Brooks, Maria
    Kenkre, Tanya
    Lubahn, John D.
    Deeney, Vincent F.
    Roach, James W.
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2017, 37 (02) : 149 - 153