The ABMS MOC Part III Examination

Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats

Richard E. Hawkins, Mira Bjelotomich Irons, Catherine M. Welcher, Mellie Villahermosa Pouwels, Eric S. Holmboe, Earl J. Reisdorff, Joshua M. Cohen, Susan Dentzer, David G. Nichols, Cynthia A. Lien, Thomas D. Horn, R. Barrett Noone, Rebecca S. Lipner, Kevin W. Eva, John J. Norcini, Lois Margaret Nora, Jeffrey P Gold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article describes the presentations and discussions at a conference co-convened by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association (AMA) and by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The conference focused on the ABMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part III Examination. This article, reflecting the conference agenda, covers the value of and evidence supporting the examination, as well as concerns about the cost of the examination, and - given the current format - its relevance. In addition, the article outlines alternative formats for the examination that four ABMS member boards are currently developing or implementing. Lastly, the article presents contrasting views on the approach to professional self-regulation. One view operationalizes MOC as a high-stakes, pass-fail process while the other perspective holds MOC as an organized approach to support continuing professional development and improvement. The authors hope to begin a conversation among the AMA, the ABMS, and other professional stakeholders about how knowledge assessment in MOC might align with the MOC program's educational and quality improvement elements and best meet the future needs of both the public and the physician community.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1509-1515
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume91
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Certification
certification
Maintenance
Medicine
examination
medical association
American Medical Association
Values
Specialty Boards
Professional Autonomy
Quality Improvement
Medical Education
self-regulation
educational program
conversation
stakeholder
physician
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis
costs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Hawkins, R. E., Irons, M. B., Welcher, C. M., Pouwels, M. V., Holmboe, E. S., Reisdorff, E. J., ... Gold, J. P. (2016). The ABMS MOC Part III Examination: Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats. Academic Medicine, 91(11), 1509-1515. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001291

The ABMS MOC Part III Examination : Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats. / Hawkins, Richard E.; Irons, Mira Bjelotomich; Welcher, Catherine M.; Pouwels, Mellie Villahermosa; Holmboe, Eric S.; Reisdorff, Earl J.; Cohen, Joshua M.; Dentzer, Susan; Nichols, David G.; Lien, Cynthia A.; Horn, Thomas D.; Noone, R. Barrett; Lipner, Rebecca S.; Eva, Kevin W.; Norcini, John J.; Nora, Lois Margaret; Gold, Jeffrey P.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 91, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 1509-1515.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hawkins, RE, Irons, MB, Welcher, CM, Pouwels, MV, Holmboe, ES, Reisdorff, EJ, Cohen, JM, Dentzer, S, Nichols, DG, Lien, CA, Horn, TD, Noone, RB, Lipner, RS, Eva, KW, Norcini, JJ, Nora, LM & Gold, JP 2016, 'The ABMS MOC Part III Examination: Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats', Academic Medicine, vol. 91, no. 11, pp. 1509-1515. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001291
Hawkins RE, Irons MB, Welcher CM, Pouwels MV, Holmboe ES, Reisdorff EJ et al. The ABMS MOC Part III Examination: Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats. Academic Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;91(11):1509-1515. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001291
Hawkins, Richard E. ; Irons, Mira Bjelotomich ; Welcher, Catherine M. ; Pouwels, Mellie Villahermosa ; Holmboe, Eric S. ; Reisdorff, Earl J. ; Cohen, Joshua M. ; Dentzer, Susan ; Nichols, David G. ; Lien, Cynthia A. ; Horn, Thomas D. ; Noone, R. Barrett ; Lipner, Rebecca S. ; Eva, Kevin W. ; Norcini, John J. ; Nora, Lois Margaret ; Gold, Jeffrey P. / The ABMS MOC Part III Examination : Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats. In: Academic Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 91, No. 11. pp. 1509-1515.
@article{ab5ee7b8294845c7a46211781bb92638,
title = "The ABMS MOC Part III Examination: Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats",
abstract = "This article describes the presentations and discussions at a conference co-convened by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association (AMA) and by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The conference focused on the ABMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part III Examination. This article, reflecting the conference agenda, covers the value of and evidence supporting the examination, as well as concerns about the cost of the examination, and - given the current format - its relevance. In addition, the article outlines alternative formats for the examination that four ABMS member boards are currently developing or implementing. Lastly, the article presents contrasting views on the approach to professional self-regulation. One view operationalizes MOC as a high-stakes, pass-fail process while the other perspective holds MOC as an organized approach to support continuing professional development and improvement. The authors hope to begin a conversation among the AMA, the ABMS, and other professional stakeholders about how knowledge assessment in MOC might align with the MOC program's educational and quality improvement elements and best meet the future needs of both the public and the physician community.",
author = "Hawkins, {Richard E.} and Irons, {Mira Bjelotomich} and Welcher, {Catherine M.} and Pouwels, {Mellie Villahermosa} and Holmboe, {Eric S.} and Reisdorff, {Earl J.} and Cohen, {Joshua M.} and Susan Dentzer and Nichols, {David G.} and Lien, {Cynthia A.} and Horn, {Thomas D.} and Noone, {R. Barrett} and Lipner, {Rebecca S.} and Eva, {Kevin W.} and Norcini, {John J.} and Nora, {Lois Margaret} and Gold, {Jeffrey P}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000001291",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "1509--1515",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ABMS MOC Part III Examination

T2 - Value, Concerns, and Alternative Formats

AU - Hawkins, Richard E.

AU - Irons, Mira Bjelotomich

AU - Welcher, Catherine M.

AU - Pouwels, Mellie Villahermosa

AU - Holmboe, Eric S.

AU - Reisdorff, Earl J.

AU - Cohen, Joshua M.

AU - Dentzer, Susan

AU - Nichols, David G.

AU - Lien, Cynthia A.

AU - Horn, Thomas D.

AU - Noone, R. Barrett

AU - Lipner, Rebecca S.

AU - Eva, Kevin W.

AU - Norcini, John J.

AU - Nora, Lois Margaret

AU - Gold, Jeffrey P

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - This article describes the presentations and discussions at a conference co-convened by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association (AMA) and by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The conference focused on the ABMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part III Examination. This article, reflecting the conference agenda, covers the value of and evidence supporting the examination, as well as concerns about the cost of the examination, and - given the current format - its relevance. In addition, the article outlines alternative formats for the examination that four ABMS member boards are currently developing or implementing. Lastly, the article presents contrasting views on the approach to professional self-regulation. One view operationalizes MOC as a high-stakes, pass-fail process while the other perspective holds MOC as an organized approach to support continuing professional development and improvement. The authors hope to begin a conversation among the AMA, the ABMS, and other professional stakeholders about how knowledge assessment in MOC might align with the MOC program's educational and quality improvement elements and best meet the future needs of both the public and the physician community.

AB - This article describes the presentations and discussions at a conference co-convened by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association (AMA) and by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). The conference focused on the ABMS Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Part III Examination. This article, reflecting the conference agenda, covers the value of and evidence supporting the examination, as well as concerns about the cost of the examination, and - given the current format - its relevance. In addition, the article outlines alternative formats for the examination that four ABMS member boards are currently developing or implementing. Lastly, the article presents contrasting views on the approach to professional self-regulation. One view operationalizes MOC as a high-stakes, pass-fail process while the other perspective holds MOC as an organized approach to support continuing professional development and improvement. The authors hope to begin a conversation among the AMA, the ABMS, and other professional stakeholders about how knowledge assessment in MOC might align with the MOC program's educational and quality improvement elements and best meet the future needs of both the public and the physician community.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992549047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84992549047&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001291

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001291

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 1509

EP - 1515

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 11

ER -