Is There Gender Bias on the American Board of Surgery General Surgery Certifying Examination?

Examiner-examinee gender concordance does not impact ratings on the American Board of Surgery Vascular Surgery Certifying Examination

OBJECTIVE

Implicit bias is a potential factor in the severity of examinee rating during oral examinations. Ratings may be impacted by examinee characteristics, such as gender, that are independent of examinee knowledge base, clinical judgment, or test-taking ability. The effects of examiner-examinee gender concordance in the Vascular Surgery Certifying Examination (VCE) have not been previously studied. We explored whether examiner ratings and likelihood of passing the examination were influenced by gender concordance among examiners and examinees.

METHODS

Data collected from examinees who first attempted the VCE between 2018 and 2023 were analyzed. There were 1005 examinees (69.3% male and 30.1% female) and 121 examiners (71.9% male, and 28.1% female). Linear mixed-effects models and generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the effects of examinee and examiner gender on VCE ratings and likelihood of passing the examination.

RESULTS

Examiner-examinee gender concordance had no significant impact on examiner ratings or likelihood of passing the examination. In addition, examinee gender alone had no significant impact on VCE rating or pass rates. Only Vascular Qualifying Examination scores explained more than 1% of the variance in total VCE scores for the gender model (F(1, 1003.5) = 71.08, P < .01, R2 = 3%). Vascular Qualifying Examination scores were positively related to total VCE scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Although implicit bias has the potential to impact examiner scoring, there is no evidence that this is the case with respect to gender in the VCE of the American Board of Surgery.

Video-Based Assessment of Microsurgical Trainees: An Evaluation of Gender Bias

BACKGROUND

 Gender bias in graduate medical evaluations remains a challenging issue. This study evaluates implicit gender bias in video-based evaluations of microsurgical technique, which has not previously been described in the literature.

METHODS

 Two videos were recorded of microsurgical anastomosis; the first was performed by a hand/microsurgery fellow and the second by an expert microsurgeon. A total of 150 surgeons with microsurgical experience were recruited to evaluate the videos; they were told these videos depicted a surgical trainee 1 month into fellowship followed by the same trainee 10 months later. The only variable was the name ("Rachel" or "David") that each participant was randomly assigned to evaluate. Participants were asked to score each video for quality, technique, efficiency, as well as overall progression and development after the second video compared with the initial video. To focus on bias, these outcome measures were selected to be purposefully subjective and all ratings were based on a subjective 1to 10 scale (10 = excellent).

RESULTS

 The analysis included 150 participants (75% male). There were no statistically significant differences in scores between the "female" and "male" trainee. The trainees received the same median initial (1-month video) and final (11th-month video) scores for all criteria except initial technique, in which the female trainee received a 7 and the male trainee received an 8. Notably, 11-month scores were consistently the same or lower than 1-month scores for both study groups (p < 0.001). There were also no differences within either study group based on participant sex. Microsurgery practitioners overall rated both groups lower than those who do not currently practice microsurgery.

CONCLUSION

 Our study did not identify a gender bias in this evaluation method. Further investigation into how we assess and grade trainees as well as the presence and impact of implicit biases on varying surgical assessment methods is warranted.

Differential attainment in assessment of postgraduate surgical trainees: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Solving disparities in assessments is crucial to a successful surgical training programme. The first step in levelling these inequalities is recognising in what contexts they occur, and what protected characteristics are potentially implicated.

METHODS

This scoping review was based on Arksey & O'Malley's guiding principles. OVID and Embase were used to identify articles, which were then screened by three reviewers.

RESULTS

From an initial 358 articles, 53 reported on the presence of differential attainment in postgraduate surgical assessments. The majority were quantitative studies (77.4%), using retrospective designs. 11.3% were qualitative. Differential attainment affects a varied range of protected characteristics. The characteristics most likely to be investigated were gender (85%), ethnicity (37%) and socioeconomic background (7.5%). Evidence of inequalities are present in many types of assessment, including: academic achievements, assessments of progression in training, workplace-based assessments, logs of surgical experience and tests of technical skills.

CONCLUSION

Attainment gaps have been demonstrated in many types of assessment, including supposedly "objective" written assessments and at revalidation. Further research is necessary to delineate the most effective methods to eliminate bias in higher surgical training. Surgical curriculum providers should be informed by the available literature on inequalities in surgical training, as well as other neighbouring specialties such as medicine or general practice, when designing assessments and considering how to mitigate for potential causes of differential attainment.

A Look at Demographics and Transition to Virtual Assessments: An Analysis of Bias in the American Board of Surgery General Surgery Certifying Exams

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were (1) to assess if examiner ratings in the American Board of Surgery (ABS) General Surgery Cetifying Exam (CE) are biased based on the gender, race, and ethnicity of the candidate or the examiners, and (2) if the format of delivering of the exams, in-person or virtual, affects how examiners rate candidates.

DESIGN

We included every candidate-examiner combination for first time takers of the general surgery oral exam. Total scores and pass/fail outcomes based on the 4 scores given by examiners to candidates were analyzed using multilevel models, with candidates as random effects. Explanatory variables included the gender, race, and ethnicity of candidates and examiners, and the format of the exam (in-person or virtual). Candidates' first attempt scores on the ABS General Surgery Qualifying Exam (QE) were also included in the models to control for the baseline knowledge of the candidate. Three sets of models were evaluated for each demographic variable (gender, race, ethnicity) due to missingness in data. p-values and coefficients of determination R2 were used to quantify the statistical and practical significance of the model coefficients (an existent relationship between the explored variables on CE scores was considered statistically and practically significant if the p-value was lower than 0.01 and R2 higher than 1%).

PARTICIPANTS

All first-time takers of the American Board of Surgery General Surgery Certifying Exam from 2016 to 2022 that had demographic data, and the examiners that participated in those exams.

RESULTS

The number of candidates/examiners for the 3 sets of models was 8665/514 (gender), 5906/465 (race), and 4678/295 (ethnicity). The demographic variables, format of the exam, or their interactions were not found to significantly relate to examiner-candidate ratings or pass/fail outcomes. The only variable that was significantly related to CE scores was candidates' QE scores, which was added to the models as a measure of candidates' initial knowledge; this held for all models for total scores (F[1,8659] = 1069.89, p-value < 0.01, R2 = 5% [gender models], F(1,5696.3) = 589.13, p-value < 0.01, R2 = 5% [race models], F(1,4459.5) = 278.33, p-value < 0.01, R2 = 5% [ethnicity models]), and pass/fail outcomes (CI = 1.61-1.73, p-value < 0.01, R2 = 3% [gender models], CI = 1.67-1.85, p-value < 0.01, R2 = 3% [race models], CI = 2.17-2.90, p-value < 0.01, R2 = 3% [ethnicity models]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that there is not a relationship between candidate and examiner gender, race, or ethnicity, and exam outcomes based on statistical models looking at examiner-candidate ratings and pass/fail outcomes. In addition, the delivery of the certifying exam in a virtual format appears to have no statistical impact on outcomes compared to in-person delivery. This suggests that the ABS is performing well in both demographic bias and virtual space.

John A, Kavic SM. A scoping review of successful strategies for passing the American Board of Surgery certifying examination

Background

This scoping review identifies existing literature that investigates what factors contribute to success on the American Board of Surgery (ABS) Certifying Exam (CE) to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations.

Methods

A Pubmed search was completed utilizing the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) method.

Results

Of 4368 articles identified, 45 articles met criteria for review. Manuscripts were placed into one of five categories: predictors from medical school, program interventions, modifiable candidate factors, the effect of mock oral exams, and those factors shown not to provide benefit for CE preparation.

Conclusions

A variety of factors have either been shown to provide benefit for or be predictive of CE performance. Acknowledgement of these factors can provide benefit to both surgery residents as well as surgery programs. Despite these findings, research into these factors is generally of low quality, prompting the need for ongoing, high-quality investigations.

How Does the Sequence of the American Board of Surgery Examinations Impact Pass/Fail Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE

Historically, the American Board of Surgery required surgeons to pass the qualifying examination (QE) before taking the certifying examination (CE). However, in the 2020-2021 academic year, with mitigating circumstances related to COVID-19, the ABS removed this sequencing requirement to facilitate the certification process for those candidates who were negatively impacted by a QE delivery failure. This decoupling of the traditional order of exam delivery has provided a natural comparator to the traditional route and an analysis of the impact of examination sequencing on candidate performance.

METHODS

All candidates who applied for the canceled July 2020 QE were allowed to take the CE before passing the QE. The sample was then reduced to include only first-time candidates to ensure comparable groups for performance outcomes. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between the order of taking the QE and the CE, controlling for other examination performance, international medical graduate status, and gender.

RESULTS

Only first-time candidates who took both examinations were compared (n=947). Examination sequence was not a significant predictor of QE pass/fail outcomes, OR=0.54; 95% CI, 0.19-1.61, P =0.26. However, examination sequence was a significant predictor of CE pass/fail outcomes, OR=2.54; 95% CI, 1.46-4.68, P =0.002.

CONCLUSIONS

This important study suggests that preparation for the QE increases the probability of passing the CE and provides evidence that knowledge may be foundational for clinical judgment. The ABS will consider these findings for examination sequencing moving forward.

Surgical Education: Disparities in Education May Impact the Quality and Likelihood of Completion of Training

Female surgical trainees experience bias that begins at the preclinical stages of medical school, extending into their surgery clerkships, and then into their residency training. There are important implications in terms of training opportunities and career advancement, mentorship, sponsorship, and ultimately burnout. Childbearing and lactation also impact the experiences and perceptions of female trainees who have children. There are limited interventions that have improved the experience of women in surgical training. Mentorship appears to play an important role in ameliorating some of the negative consequences of the training environment and improving outcomes for women surgeons.

The importance of USMLE step 2 on the screening and selection of applicants for general surgery residency positions

Background

As announced by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score reporting has transitioned to pass/fail outcomes instead of the traditional numeric score after January 26, 2022. USMLE Step 1 scores have been used widely as a crucial tool in screening and selecting applicants for residency programs. This study aims to determine the role of USMLE Step 2 in the selection of applicants for general surgery residency.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted over six recruiting cycles from 2016 to 2021. The data from 334 interviewed applicants from one general surgery residency program were assessed. Data analyzed included USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores, applicant gender, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, letters of recommendation (LOR), and research/publications (RS).

Results

Of the 334 interviewed applicants, 209 (62.6%) were male. The mean [SD] USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 C K (Clinical Knowledge) scores were 239.6 [±10.4] and 249.2 [±11.4], respectively. The mean (SD) LOR and RS scores were 4.24 [±0.4] and 3.9 [±0.7], respectively. A positive correlation was observed between USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 C K (Clinical Knowledge) scores (r = 0.60, p < .001), LOR scores (r = 0.24, p = .008), and AOA status (r = 0.19, p = .038). There was a negligible correlation between USMLE scores and applicant gender.

Conclusion

Transitioning USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail will make the initial screening and selection process of applications challenging for residency programs. In the short term, USMLE Step 2 scores, LOR, and AOA status are important as screening assessments. Valid measures to ensure appropriate, equitable, and fair assessments are needed.

Bias in Surgical Residency Evaluations: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Given widespread disparities in the surgical workforce and the advent of competency-based training models that rely on objective evaluations of resident performance, this review aims to describe the landscape of bias in the evaluation methods of residents in surgical training programs in the United States.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted within PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ERIC in May 2022, without a date restriction. Studies were screened and reviewed in duplicate by 3 reviewers. Data were described descriptively.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

English-language studies conducted in the United States that assessed bias in the evaluation of surgical residents were included.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1641 studies, of which 53 met inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 26 (49.1%) were retrospective cohort studies, 25 (47.2%) were cross-sectional studies, and 2 (3.8%) were prospective cohort studies. The majority included general surgery residents (n = 30, 56.6%) and nonstandardized examination modalities (n = 38, 71.7%), such as video-based skills evaluations (n = 5, 13.2%). The most common performance metric evaluated was operative skill (n = 22, 41.5%). Overall, the majority of studies demonstrated bias (n = 38, 73.6%) and most investigated gender bias (n = 46, 86.8%). Most studies reported disadvantages for female trainees regarding standardized examinations (80.0%), self-evaluations (73.7%), and program-level evaluations (71.4%). Four studies (7.6%) assessed racial bias, of which all reported disadvantages for trainees underrepresented in surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation methods for surgery residents may be prone to bias, particularly with regard to female trainees. Research is warranted regarding other implicit and explicit biases, such as racial bias, as well as for nongeneral surgery subspecialties.

Assessment of Potential Gender Bias in General Surgery Resident Milestone Evaluations

This quality improvement study uses Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestone evaluation scores to compare the scores of men and women surgical residents.

Early Barriers to Career Progression of Women in Surgery and Solutions to Improve Them: A Systematic Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to summarize the evidence concerning the barriers that exist to the career progression of women in surgery and to provide potential solutions to overcome these obstacles.

BACKGROUND

Visible and invisible impediments can hinder female doctors' pursuit of a surgical career, from choosing a surgical specialty to training opportunities and all the way through career progression.

METHODS

Database search of original studies about barriers for female surgeons during choice of surgical career, residency, and career progression. A query including possible solutions such as mentorship and network was included.

RESULTS

Of 4618 total articles; 4497 were excluded as duplicates, having incorrect study focus, or not being original studies; leaving 120 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the articles included, 22 (18%) focused on factors affecting the pursuit of a surgical career, such as surgical work hours and limited time for outside interests, 55 (46%) analyzed the main barriers that exist during surgical residency and fellowship training, such as discrimination and sexual harassment, 27 (23%) focused on barriers to career advancement, heavy workloads, ineffective mentorship, unclear expectations for advancement, inequality in pay or work-home conflicts. Among studies reporting on possible solutions, 8 (6.5%) articles reported on the role of effective mentorship to support career advancement and to provide moral support and 8 (6.5%) on the emerging role of social media for networking. Our analysis showed how different impediments hinder surgical career progression for women, with notable consequences on burnout and attrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification and recognition of obstacles to career progression is the first step to addressing the gender gap in surgery. Active strategies should be improved to promote a culture of diversity and to create equal opportunity for women in surgery, while implementing structured mentoring programs and investing on an adequate communication on social media to engage the future generations.

SCORE-Based Simulated ABSITE Exam Performance as a Predictor of Performance on the ABSITE

INTRODUCTION

The American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) is a crucial, objective assessment of surgical knowledge during training. In 2014, the American Board of Surgery (ABS) announced the alignment of the ABSITE to the SCORE® (Surgical Council on Resident Education) Curriculum Outline for General Surgery Residency. We hypothesized that implementing a pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exam would help identify underperforming residents and provide early guidance to improve performance on the ABSITE.

METHODS

In October 2014, our university-based surgical residency program began administering a yearly comprehensive pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exam consisting of 225 to 250 multiple-choice questions selected from the SCORE question bank to all our general surgery residents, preliminary and categorical. The 4-hour exam addresses both clinical management (80%) and applied sciences (20%). Residents receive reports with their scores (percentage correct). Residents performing at less than 60% meet with the Program Director for discussion and formulation of a study plan. Correlational analysis was performed between resident ABSITE scores, pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exam scores, gender, resident status (preliminary vs. categorical), postgraduate year (PGY), and the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores.

RESULTS

A total of 244 exam scores (122 pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exams and 122 matched ABSITE) were completed by 51 residents at different PGY levels (32 PGY1, 32 PGY2, 20 PGY3, 19 PGY4, and 18 PGY5). Fifty-seven percent were males, 62% were categorical residents, and 38% were preliminary residents. October pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exam scores were compared to the subsequent January ABSITE scores. Categorical residents completed 101 (83%) of the January exams, while preliminary residents completed 21 (17%) of these paired exams. We found strong correlations between the correct percentage on ABSITE and pre-ABSITE SCORE-based scores (r = 0.637, p < 0.001), between the correct percentage on ABSITE and PGY (r = 0.688, p < 0.001), and between ABSITE and resident status (r = 0.462, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a weak to negligible correlation between the correct percentage on ABSITE and resident gender (r = 0.274, p = 0.001), USMLE-2 (r = 0.12, p = 0.16), and USMLE-1 (r = 0.04, p = 0.653). Multiple regression analysis, with all predictors, was performed to predict the percentage score on the ABSITE and produced R² 0.58, with an adjusted R² of 0.57, with a large size effect, p < 0.001. After controlling for the other variables, three factors reached statistical significance (p < 0.05): pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exam scores, PGY, and resident gender.

CONCLUSION

We found a strong correlation between performance on the pre-ABSITE SCORE-based exam and performance on the ABSITE exam. Surgery residents are encouraged to start studying earlier and to utilize SCORE contents as outlined by the ABS in their study plan.

Predictive Factors of First Time Pass Rate on the American Board of Surgery Certification in General Surgery Exams: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

General Surgery residency programs are evaluated on their American Board of Surgery (ABS) Qualifying examination (QE) and Certifying examination (CE) pass rates. This systematic review aims to evaluate predictive factors of ABS QE and CE first time pass rates.

DESIGN

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, the following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, JAMA Network, and Google Scholar. Studies available in the English language published between January 2000 and July 2020 were deemed eligible. Articles that did not assess either of the ABS board examinations performance and pass-rates as outcomes were excluded. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine was used to determine the quality and risk of bias of each study.

RESULTS

A total of 31 publications were included for analysis. Undergraduate medical education variables associated with first-time pass rates on the QE and CE include USMLE score, AOA membership, and class rank. Program factors affecting pass rates include program size, geographic location, and Program Director turnover. There is strong correlation between ABSITE and QE. Evidence supports the utility of mock oral examinations (MOEs) in predicting CE success.

CONCLUSIONS

ABSITE scores demonstrated higher correlation with QE pass rate than CE pass rate. MOEs have a positive association with first-time CE pass rates. Nonmodifiable factors such as race/ethnicity, marital status, and geographic location were also found to be predictors. Delaying board certification examination beyond 1 year after residency graduation significantly reduces first-time pass rate.

Colon and Rectal Surgery Robotic Training Programs: An Evaluation of Gender Disparities

BACKGROUND

Female surgeons are subjected to implicit bias throughout their careers. The evaluation of gender bias in training is warranted with increasing numbers of female trainees in colon and rectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate gender bias in colon and rectal surgery training program operative experience.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The Association of Program Directors for Colon and Rectal Surgery robotic case log database contains operative details (procedure, attending surgeon, case percentage, and operative segments) completed by trainees as console surgeon for 2 academic years (2016-2017, 2017-2018).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcomes measured are the percentage of trainee console participation and the completion of total mesorectal excision. Resident and attending surgeon gender was recorded retrospectively. The cohort was separated into 4 groups based on resident and attending surgeon gender combination. Case volume, average console participation per case, and completion of total mesorectal excisions were compared for each group by using interaction regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-two training programs participated, including 120 trainees and 190 attending surgeons. Forty-five (37.5%) trainees and 36 (18.9%) attending surgeons were women. The average number of cases per trainee was 23.27 per year for women and 28.15 per year for men (p = 0.19). Average console participation was 53.5% for women and 61.7% for men (p < 0.001). Male attending surgeons provided female trainees less console participation than male counterparts (52.1% vs 59.7%, p < 0.001). Female attending surgeons provided the same amount of console participation to female and male trainees (63.3% vs 61.8%, p = 0.62). Male trainees performed significantly more complete total mesorectal excision console cases than female trainees (57.16% vs 42.38%, p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The data are subject to self-reporting bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is gender disparity in robotic operative experience in colon and rectal surgery training programs with less opportunity for console participation and less opportunity to complete total mesorectal excisions for female trainees. This trend should be highlighted and further evaluated to resolve this disparity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B224. PROGRAMAS DE CAPACITACIÓN ROBÓTICA SOBRE CIRUGÍA DE COLON Y RECTO: UNA EVALUACIÓN DE LAS DISPARIDADES DE GÉNERO: Cirujanos mujeres están sujetas a sesgos implícitos a lo largo de sus carreras. La evaluación del sesgo de género en el entrenamiento se amerita por un número cada vez mayor de aprendices femeniles en cirugía de colon y recto.Evaluar el sesgo de género en la experiencia operativa en programas de entrenamiento de cirugía de colon y recto.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.La base de datos de registro de casos robóticos de la Asociación de Directores de Programas para Cirugía de Colon y Rectal contiene detalles operativos (procedimiento, cirujano asistente, porcentaje de casos y segmentos operativos) completados por los alumnos como cirujanos de consola durante dos años académicos (2016-17, 2017-18).Porcentaje de participación de la consola de entrenamiento y finalización de la escisión mesorrectal total. Se registraron retrospectivamente el sexo de los médicos residentes y asistentes. La cohorte se separó en cuatro grupos según la combinación de género residente y asistente. El volumen de casos, la participación promedio de la consola por caso y la finalización de las extirpaciones mesorrectales totales se compararon para cada grupo mediante el análisis de regresión de interacción.Participaron 52 programas de capacitación, incluidos 120 aprendices y 190 cirujanos asistentes. Cuarenta y cinco (37.5%) aprendices y 36 (18.9%) cirujanos asistentes eran mujeres. El número promedio de casos por aprendiz fue de 23.27 / año para mujeres y 28.15 / año para hombres (p = 0.19). La participación promedio de la consola fue del 53.5% para las mujeres y del 61.7% para los hombres (p <0.001). Los cirujanos asistentes masculinos proporcionaron a las mujeres aprendices menos participación en la consola en comparación con sus compañeros masculinos (52.1% vs 59.7%, p <0.001). Los cirujanos asistentes femeninos proporcionaron la misma cantidad de participación en la consola a los aprendices femeninos y masculinos (63.3% vs 61.8%, p = 0.62). Los aprendices masculinos realizaron casos de consola TME significativamente más completos que las aprendices femeninas (57.16% vs 42.38%, p <0.0001).Los datos están sujetos a sesgos de autoinforme.Existe una disparidad de género en la experiencia quirúrgica robótica en los programas de entrenamiento de cirugía de colon y recto con menos oportunidades para la participación de la consola y menos oportunidades para completar las extirpaciones mesorrectales totales para las mujeres en formación. Esta tendencia debe destacarse y evaluarse para resolver esta disparidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B224. (Traducción-Dr. Adrián Ortega).

Confidence and Competence in Volunteer Examiners of the American Board of Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous work has demonstrated the impact of sex on the relationship between confidence and competence, with women having less confidence and less self-perceived competence. Recent recruitment of examiners by the American Board of Surgery (ABS) allowed exploration of confidence and perceived competence.

STUDY DESIGN

We solicited 23,869 eligible board-certified surgeons (4,382 women) via email to serve as examiners for the ABS General Surgery Certifying Examination (GCE). Volunteers were asked about practice and comfort examining in the 14 GCE content areas. Regression models investigated the relationship between reported practice and confidence examining.

RESULTS

There were 2,157 surgeons who volunteered, of whom 420 (19.5%) were female. Men reported practicing in a greater number of content areas than women (6.59 vs 5.36, p < 0.001) and selected more content areas in which they felt comfortable examining (7.69 vs 6.64, p < 0.001). The average male volunteer was comfortable examining in 0.70 more content areas than women, controlling for self-reported practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Men reported practicing more broadly and were more confident than women in their ability to examine across ABS Certifying Examination content areas. However, the confidence of male surgeons was not restricted to those areas in which they reported practicing. These data have important implications for training, leadership, and professional development.