The first six years' experience with the Pathology Residents' In-Service Examination, 1983-1988.

Data derived from the 1983-1988 administrations of the American Society of Clinical Pathology Residents In-Service Examination (PRISE) are presented. Data indicate an increase in participation by U.S. and Canadian pathology residency training programs (from 55% in 1983 to approximately 90% in 1988). Demographic data reflect an increase in the proportion of foreign medical graduates (from 24.8% in 1983 to 32.8% in 1988) in U.S. training programs with concomitant decrease in proportion of U.S. medical graduates (from 74.8% to 61.5%, respectively). Canadian residents comprise approximately 5% of the test population. Response surveys from residents and program directors indicate a high degree of satisfaction with the PRISE. In 1988 40.6% of all program directors thought that the PRISE satisfied their objectives very well, and 56% thought that objectives were met satisfactorily. For residents the corresponding rates were 21.2% and 70.7%. Trends in resident group performance in each subspecialty area of pathology, and the implications for residency training are discussed.

First national in-service examination for pathology residents.

To fulfill an identified need in pathology residency program training, in 1983 the American Society of Clinical Pathologists introduced the first national in-service examination for pathology residents. This 175-item objective examination structured with seven subtest categories for various clinical rotations was administered to 1,200 residents-in-training representing 145 training programs, 40 states, and the District of Columbia. Individual norm-referenced results reports returned to each examinee, and program reports to each residency program director, indicated rank of individual examinee performance in each category and in all categories as well as with defined peer groups. Anonymity of individual results was optional to program directors. The data indicate that although performance improves with each subsequent year of residency training, the improvement is not so great as expected and that the level of performance of residents entering training was higher than anticipated. Postexamination evaluation indicated the need for this effort to continue.