This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.—I feel the commentary entitled, "Why Recertification?" by Arthur Baue, MD, requires comment. There seems to be a certain thread of naiveté running through this article. There is no doubt that it is both functionally and politically advantageous to demonstrate competence within one's profession. For one to assume that that can be done via taking a test every seven years or by making a few scratches on bits of computerized paper to indicate that one can answer questions that have been written down is a bit presumptuous. If there is something magical about a recertification period of seven years, I would like to know what happens to an individual during that seven years that may render him incompetent, assuming he were competent previously.
I dare say a closer review of present testing methods show them to be still in a quite infantile stage, leaving the examiners to
BLACKER GJ. Why Recertification?. Arch Surg. 1980;115(8):1003. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1980.01380080093022