The in-training examination in internal medicine: resident perceptions and lack of correlation between resident scores and faculty predictions of resident performance.

PURPOSE: We sought to survey residents' perceptions regarding the In-Training Examination in Internal Medicine and to assess the ability of faculty members to evaluate the knowledge base of internal medicine residents. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Residents were asked about the perceived utility of the In-Training Examination and related self-directed educational activities. Residents predicted their own performance on the examination (into upper, middle, or lower tertile). Faculty predicted housestaffs scores, and residents predicted the scores of interns. RESULTS: Most residents (35/36; 97%) believed that the examination was useful, and 91% modified their study habits or clinical rotation schedule based on its results. Approximately half of the residents accurately predicted into which tertile they would score. Faculty predictions of resident performance on the examination were accurate 49% of the time, and resident predictions of intern scores were accurate 38% of the time. The sensitivity ofa lower-tertile prediction by faculty was 34%, with a specificity of 90%. The sensitivity of a resident prediction of a lower-tertile intern score was 15%, with a specificity of 98%. Both faculty and residents were more likely to overestimate than underestimate examination scores. CONCLUSION: Residents believe that the In-Training Examination is useful and frequently initiate educational interventions based on results. Faculty and residents lack the ability to evaluate accurately the knowledge of trainees that they supervise. In particular, both groups may be unable to identify trainees who are deficient in this element of clinical competence.

Effect of splenectomy on T lymphocyte subsets in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.

A case-control study was conducted at two institutions to determine whether the absolute CD4 lymphocyte count or the percentage of lymphocytes bearing the CD4 marker (i.e., the CD4 percentage) is a more accurate indicator of underlying immune status in splenectomized patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Each of nine splenectomized HIV-infected cases was matched with six nonsplenectomized HIV-infected controls--three matched for CD4 lymphocyte count and three for CD4 percentage. In analyses including the eight cases with an initial CD4 lymphocyte count of > 200/mm3, controlling for the CD4 count revealed differences between cases and controls in terms of CD4 percentage (range, 10%-41% and 17%-54%, respectively; P < .01) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) clinical stage (P = .06). Controlling for the CD4 percentage revealed a significant difference between cases and controls in terms of CD4 count (range, 396-1,040 and 55-784 cells/mm3, respectively; P < .01) but not CDC clinical stage (P > .7). These data suggest that the numerical relationship between the CD4 lymphocyte count and the CD4 percentage among splenectomized HIV-infected patients with more than 200 CD4 cells/mm3 differs from that among nonsplenectomized patients. The CD4 percentage appears to be a more accurate indicator of the underlying level of immune function in the former group of patients.