This oral examination is the final step in the certification process for most physicians. The purpose of the examination is to determine whether a candidate can efficiently gather relevant information about a patient and then manage this patient appropriately and effectively.
Candidates who successfully complete the Qualifying (Part 1) Examination, who have met the practice duration requirement, have adequate practice logs and acceptable peer review, and who meet all criteria of the Board, will be eligible to take the Certifying (Part 2) Examination.
Candidates for certification must complete the entire certification process within six years of completing their residency. The Board may approve an extension of the six-year period of admissibility for the following reasons:
Certifying Exam applications are mailed in mid-May to all eligible candidates, and the current application will be available for download from the ABU website at that time. The application and fee are due July 1. Applications may be submitted with an additional $750 late fee until August 1, after which time no applications will be accepted.
Electronic Practice Logs are due September 1. Logs submitted after this date will be assessed an additional $750 late fee until September 15, after which time no logs will be accepted.
Letters of admissibility to candidates who have been approved to take the exam will be mailed in late December.
The oral examination is held annually on a Friday and Saturday in mid-February at the Grand Hyatt DFW, at DFW Airport in Dallas, TX. Registration and orientation is conducted on the Thursday before at 5:00 PM.
Dates for the 2017 Certifying Exam are February 24 and 25.
The Certifying (Part 2) Examination takes place annually each February in Dallas, Texas. Each candidate appears before one examiner on Friday, and then a different examiner on Saturday. During each daily session, the candidate will be tested on three different protocols.
The Trustees of the American Board of Urology, who are selected for their expertise in clinical urology, develop protocols and questions for this examination. After an individual Trustee develops an oral protocol, it is presented to a subgroup of other Trustees for comments and critique. The protocol then undergoes sufficient revision to ensure clarity, adequate representation of the problem at hand, and relevance to that particular field of clinical urology. When all in the subgroup agree that the protocol is acceptable, it is presented to the entire Board of Trustees for review and potential selection among the protocols deemed best for upcoming use on the oral examination.
Oral examiners include current and former Trustees of the American Board of Urology, as well as carefully-selected, well qualified guest examiners. The guest examiners are nationally chosen for their knowledge, ability to be fair and consistent, and clinical urology reputation. Prior to the Certifying (Part 2) Examination, the protocols are presented to the entire group of examiners, to ensure all examiners understand the details of each protocol.
To read an article published in Urology Times about a candidate's experience taking the Certifying (Part 2) Exam, Please click here.
Do not assume that routine tests have been obtained and routine care administered. You must ask the examiner for this information.
Each examiner is evaluated statistically throughout the examination. This allows comparisons between examiners with respect to fairness and severity. If an examiner's performance is inconsistent or appears not to be impartial, this matter is taken into account during the grading process to ensure fair treatment of every candidate. In such case, the examiner in question will not be invited to participate in future oral examinations.
The Board uses a standardized, well-documented method to determine the minimum pass level which represents competency needed to practice urology. Using a sophisticated statistical program, the difficulty of the protocols and the severity of the examiners are determined. The values are then placed on the same scale, so that differences in examiners and protocols may be equalized, giving each candidate the same probability of passing the exam, regardless of the particular protocol or examiner. For example, one candidate might receive a very difficult protocol administered by a “very severe” examiner. The statistical program adjusts for such a scenario so that the total score required to pass the examination is less than if that same candidate had an “easy” examiner and a less challenging protocol. In the case of an easy protocol administered by an “easy” examiner, the scale would be raised to a higher level so that it would be just as probable to pass the exam with a “severe” examiner and difficult protocol as it would be if with an “easy” examiner and an easy protocol.