104
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original

The oral board examination for plastic surgery: seeking a better way

, , , , &
Pages 360-364 | Published online: 03 Jul 2009

References

  • Anastakis D, Cohen R, Reznick R. The structured oral examination as a method for assessing surgical residents. American Journal of Surgery 1991; 162: 67–70
  • Armin S, Tetzlaff JE, Tan M, et al. Consistency, inter-rater reliability, and validity of 441 consecutive mock oral examinations in anesthesiology: implications for use as a tool for assessment of residents. American Journal of Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 288–298
  • Colliver JA, Verhulst SJ, Williams RG, Norcini JJ. Reliability of performance on standardized patient cases: a comparison of consistency measures based on generalizability theory. Teaching Learning Med. 1989; 1: 31–37
  • Davis MH, Karunathilake I. The place of the oral examination in today's assessment systems. Medical Teacher 2005; 27(4)294–297
  • Rohrich RJ. So you are Board-Certified in plastic surgery: what it means in the new millennium. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2000; 105: 1473–1474
  • Rowland-Morin PA, Coe NP, Greenburg AG, et al. The effect of improving communication competency on the certifying examination of the American board of surgery. American Journal of Surgery 2002; 183: 656–658
  • Sako EY, Petrusa ERJR, Paukert JL. Factors influencing outcome of the American board of surgery certifying examination: an observational study. Journal of Surgical Research 2002; 105: 75–80
  • Stawski WS. Evolution of a mock oral board examination program in surgery. American Surgery 1994; 60: 603–605
  • Wade TP, Andrus CH, Kaminski DL. Evaluations of surgery residents performance correlate with success in board examinations. Surgery 1993; 113: 644–648
  • Weingarten MR, Polliack MR, Tabenkin H, Kahan E. Variations among examiners in family medicine residency board oral examinations. Medical Education 2000; 34: 13–17
  • Zelenock GB, Calhoun JG, Hockman EM, et al. Oral examinations: Actual and perceived contributions to surgery clerkship performance. Surgery 1985; 97: 737–744

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.