PalestineCMR
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope it's tomorrow and we all pass, this waiting game is painful
General Cardiology Boards 2023
- Thread starter Egghead34
- Start date
~930 am based on posts from last years threads
PalestineCMR
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm getting the feeling it's next Tuesday not this one, but I hope I'm wrong
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
I am guessing what happened with those questions they r pretending to take time 😜
My own take is that given the cluster**** that happened with you guys, it’s gonna take longer to get results. Maybe 6 weeks or even more. Last year it was 5 weeks to the dot.
During Covid though, they also had two dates didn’t they?
Yes I think October and December date so they waited for December test takers to release all the scores together in January but must have been painful wait for October test takers
I'm curious - has anyone gotten any sort of response from the ABIM providing clarity on their "rigorous validation process?"
I've emailed them and expressed the need for transparency, as well as to clarify metrics and proper coding (rather than just guessing) if this method is going to be used to fail people. Unfortunately, I've only gotten canned responses.
Who is the current "Approval Committee Chair" for cardiology, that they refer to in their apology email?
It is easy (cowardly?) to hide behind canned emails and layers of bureaucracy; I would hope our very own colleagues (presumably assigned to this committee) would do us the courtesy of communicating what measures are being taken to adjudicate this fairly and improve the testing process for future colleagues.
I've emailed them and expressed the need for transparency, as well as to clarify metrics and proper coding (rather than just guessing) if this method is going to be used to fail people. Unfortunately, I've only gotten canned responses.
Who is the current "Approval Committee Chair" for cardiology, that they refer to in their apology email?
It is easy (cowardly?) to hide behind canned emails and layers of bureaucracy; I would hope our very own colleagues (presumably assigned to this committee) would do us the courtesy of communicating what measures are being taken to adjudicate this fairly and improve the testing process for future colleagues.
I agree with you completely but they're going to say it's all on their website. They have an entire section how they develop the exam questions, how it's validated, how they determine pass score, and how they validate questions after the exam. It's all BS...
Recognizing that advances in medicine can change the accuracy of a test question and its keyed answer, after the assessment is administered, ABIM conducts a rigorous key validation process before final scores are released. The purpose of the key validation process is to ensure each test question is accurate and that medical knowledge in the area has not changed since it was last reviewed by the Approval Committee. Test questions are flagged after thorough examination of item statistics and/or comments made by examinees that suggest new information has emerged that may affect the correct answer. Test questions flagged as potentially needing key validation are sent to the Approval Committee Chair for review. If it is determined that any of the flagged questions is inaccurate based on its content, ABIM removes it from scoring and it will be removed from the live question pool.
How Exams Are Developed | About ABIM Exams | ABIM.org
Discover how ABIM's certification exams are developed. Review question format, exam blueprint, question development process and more.
www.abim.org
cardiologist4life
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2023
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 6
Cardiovascular Board | Specialty Boards | ABIM.org
The Cardiovascular Board at ABIM assists with ensuring the Cardiovascular Physician Certification and MOC exams are relevant and rigorous.
www.abim.org
Why Is the College Board Pushing to Expand Advanced Placement?
This year, taxpayers paid the nonprofit at least $90 million for A.P. tests that many students failed.
Sound familiar to anyone? Same as ABIM tactics. All these organizations are money-making thugs that exploit people, right from when they're in high school. This should all be nationalized.
cardiologist4life
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2023
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 6
Those emails and petition of 96 people really scared them huh... 
Last edited:
There are a few issues at play.
1.) The test as it stands (particularly day two) does not reflect current practice. The artificial coding metric does not abide by current guideline definitions or management (the SCCT guidelines and the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines use different angiography visual estimates, for example. Its 70% and not 75%, and there are differences depending on the vessel such that "severe" for left main is a different number. Not to mention there are class I indications to use alternative modalities for any intermediate lesion because the guidelines understand inter-observer variability and nuance in the lab. So to give us 100 different coding options and let a computer flag one as "right" and one as "wrong" when the difference between moderate and severe has potentially no clinical significance is inappropriate. The same holds for the echocardiography section.
2.) There is no published instruction on the proper way to code. And if you "over-code" you get points detracted. This renders test-takers guessing and relying on vague word-of-mouth advice from prior test-takers. (Mayo board review literally said to code "more" on echo than on ecg or cath, yet a colleague failed and felt quite sure it was from coding too much. My program director cautioned against over-coding. Who knows what that even means, since there is no instruction on what "right" is.)
It is my understanding that the ABIM will look into questions that have been brought to the attention of the Committee. Meaning, an error or unclear/inappropriate question is likely to go unnoticed (and instead be subject to herd interpretation) unless someone has taken the time to remember the details and communicate why they felt it to be unclear. I am quite sure few people have taken the time to do that - why would you? Take a bunch of people in further training or starting new positions and juggling family life, kids, responsibilities, and I suspect most people just hope and pray they passed and most will. I can only reason, again, that this is why this exam has remained in its current state for so long.
Also...side note....it is not like this committee is huddled in a room together trying to fairly adjudicate a very complex dilemma (how do you make a test "fair" when half the test-takers spent a significant amount of time answering unsolvable problems? The Angoff method to select score cut-off wasn't built to address the time constraints and downstream effect on other questions now introduced with this variable. So HOW are they addressing this?) They're spread around the country and presumably working their regularly jobs and about to break for holidays. I do not have faith that due diligence is being given to this issue with profound career consequences.
But, again, I am flabbergasted that an exam so fundamentally flawed has persisted, and that's not even broaching the subject of this year's objective errors.
If the consequences weren't so severe (financial loss being just the tip of the iceberg) I perhaps would be less disappointed in this governing body.
Historically, the ABIM has survived lawsuits because the plaintiffs couldn't prove economic loss (the judge argued that the ABIM was not responsible for employer policies or standards). I'm not sure, given the ABIM's role in ACGME accreditation (which we are obligated to be bound to as trainees) how one wouldn't view it as a (unjust) monopoly.
1.) The test as it stands (particularly day two) does not reflect current practice. The artificial coding metric does not abide by current guideline definitions or management (the SCCT guidelines and the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines use different angiography visual estimates, for example. Its 70% and not 75%, and there are differences depending on the vessel such that "severe" for left main is a different number. Not to mention there are class I indications to use alternative modalities for any intermediate lesion because the guidelines understand inter-observer variability and nuance in the lab. So to give us 100 different coding options and let a computer flag one as "right" and one as "wrong" when the difference between moderate and severe has potentially no clinical significance is inappropriate. The same holds for the echocardiography section.
2.) There is no published instruction on the proper way to code. And if you "over-code" you get points detracted. This renders test-takers guessing and relying on vague word-of-mouth advice from prior test-takers. (Mayo board review literally said to code "more" on echo than on ecg or cath, yet a colleague failed and felt quite sure it was from coding too much. My program director cautioned against over-coding. Who knows what that even means, since there is no instruction on what "right" is.)
It is my understanding that the ABIM will look into questions that have been brought to the attention of the Committee. Meaning, an error or unclear/inappropriate question is likely to go unnoticed (and instead be subject to herd interpretation) unless someone has taken the time to remember the details and communicate why they felt it to be unclear. I am quite sure few people have taken the time to do that - why would you? Take a bunch of people in further training or starting new positions and juggling family life, kids, responsibilities, and I suspect most people just hope and pray they passed and most will. I can only reason, again, that this is why this exam has remained in its current state for so long.
Also...side note....it is not like this committee is huddled in a room together trying to fairly adjudicate a very complex dilemma (how do you make a test "fair" when half the test-takers spent a significant amount of time answering unsolvable problems? The Angoff method to select score cut-off wasn't built to address the time constraints and downstream effect on other questions now introduced with this variable. So HOW are they addressing this?) They're spread around the country and presumably working their regularly jobs and about to break for holidays. I do not have faith that due diligence is being given to this issue with profound career consequences.
But, again, I am flabbergasted that an exam so fundamentally flawed has persisted, and that's not even broaching the subject of this year's objective errors.
If the consequences weren't so severe (financial loss being just the tip of the iceberg) I perhaps would be less disappointed in this governing body.
Historically, the ABIM has survived lawsuits because the plaintiffs couldn't prove economic loss (the judge argued that the ABIM was not responsible for employer policies or standards). I'm not sure, given the ABIM's role in ACGME accreditation (which we are obligated to be bound to as trainees) how one wouldn't view it as a (unjust) monopoly.
Agree. Regardless of whether test takers passed or not please take a moment to email the committee to express concerns about day 2. They need to change the format of day 2 or provide more instructions on how exactly to code.
I think IC board was the week after us, they took it on October 16
Guess ours won't be until next week at earliest since they're off tomorrow afternoon for rest of the week.
Regardless of whether you passed or failed, we should email the ABIM to express concerns about day 2. Going forward, we should push for a new CV board from ACC/HRS/HFSA/SCAI/AHA and encourage new cardiologists to endorse the new CV board by our professional societies instead of this scam ABIM exam.
Can anyone create a concise template letter to send to the committee? We should all email them regardless if we pass or fail.
anoncardioguy
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 14
Honestly all of this is just a slap in the face. The whole testing debacle. Their response. Releasing IC scores before our scores. It’s unbelievable.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
I was never confident in this testing and scoring and after what happened this year I am shocked. Can't believe my career is dependent on this.
I think they are in a bad position with the overall situation that’s been going on for a while (MOC problem with everyone, new cardiology and cardiac subspecialty boards, and our disastrous day 2 CV board) and they are trying to make it better by taking time to release our results! I would still hope though, and give them the benefit of doubt, that it’s actually taking longer because they are truly reviewing day 2 mess and coming up with a good decent solution
I doubt it's going to change anything. They have all the power unfortunately and can just say the questions were tossed. The committee likely had to meet to discuss day 2 issues which has delayed reporting of scores. They have the scores. They're just doing their due diligence because people are going to fail because of day 2 and they're making sure they navigate this in best way to protect the organization.
Honestly man, as depressing as it is, I think you're probably right. Our scores are siting there just waiting to be sent out. It's about gameplanning for damage control now, and putting out the fires that will flare up when the results are released (ie, when people fail because of that ****ty day 2).
I think the only, ONLY good thing to come of this debacle is that there is no question ACC/HRS/etc will end up taking boards away from ABIM.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 9
Did they release the EP results yet? They took it about a week before us...
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
Yes they did
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
I see the results for the cardiology boards under "My assessments and certifications" as "Pass/Fail" however if I go to the "My assessments", it says the exam is not scored yet. Do y'all see the same?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 5
So nervous 😭 when will it come out?
Likely this week
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 14
Is this just a feeling or did you hear from anyone?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
Has anyone called ABIM?
I don’t think it will be fruitful to call them to be honest, whoever is answering the call will give a caned response like results can take up to 3 months per exam policy and you will be notified via email when the result is released / avilable
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
That is ridiculous - we need more transparency. They do not understand what we go through.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
Do people think it will be today????
Nah they didn't work most of last week. If it's going to be released it'll likely be end of the week.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
How much work does it take to score this exam?
cardio82990
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2023
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 2
Endocrinology received their board results this AM at 0730.
They took their boards 2 weeks after ours, on 10/24...
They took their boards 2 weeks after ours, on 10/24...
The only way forward for ABIM is to eliminate day 2 and have a single day multiple choice only exam.
This would achieve parity with other sub specialities, avoid an esoteric coding system that has been a pain point for years (specifically because it has no real world relevance or precedent, and is undefined and subjective), and avoids an unnecessary entire day of testing subjects that have their own board exams (echocardiography and IC). Echo images and EKGS can be included in multiple choice questions.
Once examinees have a choice between two board exams, no one would chose such a ridiculous exam structure as ABIMS current 2 day system
This would achieve parity with other sub specialities, avoid an esoteric coding system that has been a pain point for years (specifically because it has no real world relevance or precedent, and is undefined and subjective), and avoids an unnecessary entire day of testing subjects that have their own board exams (echocardiography and IC). Echo images and EKGS can be included in multiple choice questions.
Once examinees have a choice between two board exams, no one would chose such a ridiculous exam structure as ABIMS current 2 day system
Succinctly and eloquently put. If you haven't already, consider emailing this to ABIM.
I'm (naively?) optimistic that if enough voices shout, they might listen.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 5
Agree with you @yaogaui
Day 2 is not necessary as they already test our comprehension of ECGs and Echos in the multiple choice section.
Having a 10 hour exam the first day and then they expect you to wake up the next day and take a completely ambiguous test that no one knows how to score is utterly ridiculous.
Day 2 is not necessary as they already test our comprehension of ECGs and Echos in the multiple choice section.
Having a 10 hour exam the first day and then they expect you to wake up the next day and take a completely ambiguous test that no one knows how to score is utterly ridiculous.
Not that it matters to ABIM but let's not forget we are the one speciality that has board exams in every bread and butter component of the field. Echo board exam. Nuclear board exam. Vascular ultrasound board exam. Every subspeciality in cardiology board exam. It's absolutely ridiculous.
