• Sherilyn W Driscoll, Lawrence R Robinson, Mikaela M Raddatz, and Carolyn L Kinney.
• From the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (SWD); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (LRR); and American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rochester, Minnesota (MMR, CLK).
• Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Jun 1; 98 (6): 512-515.

ObjectiveUnconscious bias may result in a prejudicial evaluation of another person and lead to unfair treatment. Potential gender bias risk exists in the scoring process on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation oral examination (Part II) because of the face-to-face interactions between candidates and examiners. This study was undertaken to determine whether performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination differed based on candidate gender or configuration of examiner/candidate gender pairings. The impact of examiner unconscious bias training on candidate performance was also assessed.DesignThis is a retrospective observational study of first-time Part II physical medicine and rehabilitation certification examination test takers between 2013 and 2018.ResultsThere were significant differences in pass rates (men 84%, women 89%) and mean scaled scores (men 6.56, women 6.81) between men and women (P < 0.001) with the biggest domain score differences in data acquisition and interpersonal and communication skills. Implementation of examiner unconscious bias training did not impact candidate performance.ConclusionsWomen candidates scored higher and had a higher pass rate than men candidates overall on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination. This difference does not seem to be due to scoring gender bias by the Part II examiners or due to candidate aptitude as measured on the Part I examination.

12 keywords...

hide…