Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

FM-PRoC


insomnias
 Share

Recommended Posts

So...is anyone else tempted to boycot the programs requiring FM-PRoC before our underclasspeople end up with another test for residency applications? For FM applicants, CASPer is required by NOSM/UMB/USK FM....and bizarrely, U of A PHPM+FM requires CASPer, not FM-PRoC, despite spending the first two years in FM.

For those not in the know:

Quote

All applicants to our [U of A, U of C, U of O, U de M, Queen's, McMaster] Family Medicine Program, in the 1st round of the 2022 CaRMS  cycle will be required to sit a new 70-minute online Situational Judgement Test  (SJT), called “FM-ProC” (Family Medicine Professional Choices). 

The cost will be $38 which is exactly what it costs us to make this test available for  you. Payment will be required at the time of your registration. 

For those wondering how it's scored (which might actually be worse than CASPer?):

Quote

There are two types of question formats included in the FMProC; Rating and Ranking;  

Rating: You will be asked to independently rate each of the 4-8 response options on a 4-point  scale (e.g., between ‘very appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’), in order of their appropriateness or  importance, in responding to the situation. 

Your answers are marked by comparing your responses to a standard set by a panel which  included Canadian Family Medicine Physicians and residents. The closer your response is to  the model response, the more marks you are awarded.  

Ranking: You will be asked to rank the 5 response options presented in order of their  appropriateness or importance in response to the situation. 

Your answers are marked by comparing your responses to a standard set by a panel which  included Canadian Family Medicine Physicians and residents. The closer your response is to  the model response, the more marks you are awarded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It saddens me that programs resort to such ridiculous new 'tools.' Just interview people, talk to them, get a feel for who they are. Candidates made it this far, they must be good quality candidates. I wonder who is getting paid/lobbied to implement these tools.

All this stuff is nonsense IMHO. Validated by heavily biased studies I'm sure. Wouldn't persuade me to choose these programs tbh. Even Casper was ridiculous when I had to do it for residency applications. All of this stuff should be match violations and ultimately banned. 

But schools and programs hold the power. They can do whatever they want. They can break an individual down to just a number, a score, and a checklist. 

My rant is now complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol at throwing shade at casper.

However, in a current reality where most applicants will not have the opportunity to do an away rotation, and get more than a generic letter, I understand the need to add something to the formula, as now that most schools don't record grades, each program gets 1000 applicants with very little distinguishing them (Ie everyone has letters from their home program saying they would be a good fit for FM etc.). I don't know if this is the best way, but perhaps it's better than casper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s dumb. I think all the tests are dumb. However, I do appreciate that they’re trying to move away from Casper to something more affordable and easier to schedule - my understanding is this test is not actually meant to make any money for anyone, and you can write it whenever you want in the test window. Way less of a pain in the ass than Casper. 
 

Edit: and I guess I’ll add that I have written this test as part of the research project, and I found it overall more agreeable than Casper. Still disagree with the whole premise. But, for applicants this year who have to do it - at least be reassured that its not that annoying of a hoop in comparison with all the other CaRMS hoops you have to deal with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, frenchpress said:

 

Edit: and I guess I’ll add that I have written this test as part of the research project, and I found it overall more agreeable than Casper. Still disagree with the whole premise. But, for applicants this year who have to do it - at least be reassured that its not that annoying of a hoop in comparison with all the other CaRMS hoops you have to deal with. 

I get the feeling that this is part of some bigger research project…but have no data to back it up (I.e. they will follow those who wrote it and how they score and compare to passing rate of rotations/CCFP certifying exam).

i, too, am tired of more and more tests for trainees…just remember that once you’re staff there’s no more exams and studying is now left to you and your devices (gotta study and keep up or else be “that” person who is practising based on guidelines from 20-30 years ago…)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LostLamb said:

I get the feeling that this is part of some bigger research project…but have no data to back it up (I.e. they will follow those who wrote it and how they score and compare to passing rate of rotations/CCFP certifying exam).

i, too, am tired of more and more tests for trainees…just remember that once you’re staff there’s no more exams and studying is now left to you and your devices (gotta study and keep up or else be “that” person who is practising based on guidelines from 20-30 years ago…)

Like CBD? Lmao.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, frenchpress said:

I think it’s dumb. I think all the tests are dumb. However, I do appreciate that they’re trying to move away from Casper to something more affordable and easier to schedule - my understanding is this test is not actually meant to make any money for anyone, and you can write it whenever you want in the test window. Way less of a pain in the ass than Casper. 
 

Edit: and I guess I’ll add that I have written this test as part of the research project, and I found it overall more agreeable than Casper. Still disagree with the whole premise. But, for applicants this year who have to do it - at least be reassured that its not that annoying of a hoop in comparison with all the other CaRMS hoops you have to deal with. 

Med students are some of the most highly-selected individuals for their ability to write tests, including SJTs like CASPer and MMIs. We wouldn't be in med school otherwise. Adding on yet another test of the same flavour is hardly defensible. In the end, residency is a job, and perhaps CaRMS should be treated more like a job application.

If the program selection committee wants more non-peer-reviewed, un-validated ways to narrow us down, fine, but we already have to pay to apply to their programs - perhaps they should put their money where their mouth is: If they believe FM-PRoC is useful, then they should cover the cost themselves because, quite frankly, it's not my problem that they're spoiled for choice, and you can't claim to want greater socioeconomic diversity in your medical school / residency if you're going to expect people to pay further costs out of their own pocket, regardless of what the actual cost is and what their earning potential may be. Nor can you claim to want diversity of experiences when you're literally marking people against how close their opinions are to those of current residents/physicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LostLamb said:

I get the feeling that this is part of some bigger research project…but have no data to back it up (I.e. they will follow those who wrote it and how they score and compare to passing rate of rotations/CCFP certifying exam).

i, too, am tired of more and more tests for trainees…just remember that once you’re staff there’s no more exams and studying is now left to you and your devices (gotta study and keep up or else be “that” person who is practising based on guidelines from 20-30 years ago…)

Actually they're quite clear in the document that this is exactly what they intend to do:

"When you register for FMProC you will also be invited to participate in a research  project. This project is designed to evaluate any disadvantage for a specific  demographic group of candidates sitting the test and the predictive validity of the  test over 2 years, for those who subsequently match to FM. When you register for  FMProC, please consider agreeing to the use of your de-identified data in this  project as this will help in the ongoing evaluation of this assessment tool for  fairness, equity, reliability, and validity in the Canadian Family Medicine  context. "

 

I think I might just decline out of spite... depends on how frustrated I am with this entire process by the time the test actually rolls around... that'll probably be the extent I'd be willing to "boycott" this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2021 at 9:43 PM, insomnias said:

Your answers are marked by comparing your responses to a standard set by a panel which  included Canadian Family Medicine Physicians and residents. The closer your response is to  the model response, the more marks you are awarded.  

This is the most quintessentially idiotic Canadian thing possible. They're scoring people based on conforming to a pre-selected groups answers to an ethical scenario. No critical thinking is evaluated in this, they're just rewarding conformity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, insomnias said:

Med students are some of the most highly-selected individuals for their ability to write tests, including SJTs like CASPer and MMIs. We wouldn't be in med school otherwise. Adding on yet another test of the same flavour is hardly defensible. In the end, residency is a job, and perhaps CaRMS should be treated more like a job application.

If the program selection committee wants more non-peer-reviewed, un-validated ways to narrow us down, fine, but we already have to pay to apply to their programs - perhaps they should put their money where their mouth is: If they believe FM-PRoC is useful, then they should cover the cost themselves because, quite frankly, it's not my problem that they're spoiled for choice, and you can't claim to want greater socioeconomic diversity in your medical school / residency if you're going to expect people to pay further costs out of their own pocket, regardless of what the actual cost is and what their earning potential may be. Nor can you claim to want diversity of experiences when you're literally marking people against how close their opinions are to those of current residents/physicians.

I dislike how this test is going to score you in terms of how close your opinions/perspectives are to the the opinion of current residents/physicians ( as if the opinions of current residents/physicians are the gold standard) lol.. I had to do this test as part of research project few months ago and I had to enter my demographics,and I thought overall it was a fun test to do...  However, it was not different than any SJT I  have previously done and I just don't understand how this test is going to be helpful in selecting applicants, especially FM applicants. This test is similar to MMI and CaSPER, so probably everyone will do well on it, and it will not be helpful in differentiating b/w applicants. I also don't think there is a necessity to differentiate b/w applicants in FM ( because usually FM applicants have the choice in determining the program they wish to go to b/c the supply >> demand in FM, and it is not usually the other way around, especially in FM).  FM residency programs interview any applicant from my experience, and even accepts tons of applicants who clearly had FM as their back-up. FM residency programs are not the 'chooser', it has always mainly been the FM applicants who had a choice over the way they rank the various FM programs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...