4.3 Article

Overemphasis of Step 1 Scores May Affect Application Pool Diversity in Radiation Oncology

Journal

PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages E3-E7

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.07.009

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Many radiation oncology programs use Step 1 score metrics as a surrogate for intelligence and success to screen applicants. The impact of this practice on radiation oncology applicant pool diversity is unknown. Methods and Materials: Electronic Residency Application Service applications submitted to our institution between 2015 and 2018 match cycles were reviewed. Sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Step 1 scores were collected. Groupings by characteristics were sex (female vs male), age <= 30 versus >30 years, and race/ethnicity by underrepresented minority (URM) versus non-URM status. URMs were defined as Black/African American, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Step 1 scores were divided based on scores of 220 and 240. The association between applicant demographics and Step 1 scores was assessed using proportional odds logistic regression for ordinal outcomes. Results: Eight hundred ten applicants with Step 1 scores ranging from 188 to 275 were collected, representing nearly 90% of all applicants during the 2015 to 2018 Electronic Residency Application Service cycles. Twenty-nine percent were female, 29% were >30 years of age, and 10% were URMs. Increasing Step 1 score requirements disproportionately decreased representation of applicants who were female versus male at 240 (-51% vs -31%), >30 versus <= 30 years old at 220 (-28% vs -6%) and 240 (-55% vs -26%), and URMs versus non-URMs at 220 (-34% vs -9%) and 240 (-61% vs -34%). On analysis, Step 1 score requirements had a statistically significantly impact on applicant distributions based on sex, age, and URM status (P < .001). Conclusions: Overemphasis of Step 1 scores may reduce the diversity of the radiation oncology applicant pool. Further evaluation of practices that counter the stated American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Radiation Oncology, and American College of Radiology diversity missions should be pursued to improve understanding of barriers and biases. (C) 2019 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available