Dataset Information

Impact of the foundations of clinical medicine course on USMLE scores.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The synthesis of basic and clinical science knowledge during the clerkship years has failed to meet educational expectations. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that a small-group course emphasizing the basic science underpinnings of disease, Foundations of Clinical Medicine (FCM), could be integrated into third year clerkships and would not negatively impact the United States Medical Licensure Examination (USMLE) step 2 scores. DESIGN: In 2001-2002, all third year students met weekly in groups of 8-12 clustered within clerkships to discuss the clinical and basic science aspects of prescribed, discipline-specific cases. PARTICIPANTS: Students completing USMLE step 2 between 1999 and 2004 (n = 743). MEASUREMENTS: Course evaluations were compared with the overall institutional average. Bivariate analyses compared the mean USMLE steps 1 and 2 scores across pre- and post-FCM student cohorts. We used multiple linear regression to assess the association between USMLE step 2 scores and FCM cohort controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: Students' average course evaluation score rose from 66 to 77 (2001-2004) compared to an institutional average of 73. The unadjusted mean USMLE step 1 score was higher for the post-FCM cohort (212.9 vs 207.5, respectively, p < .001) and associated with step 2 scores (estimated coefficient = 0.70, p < .001). Post-FCM cohort (2002-2004; n = 361) mean step 2 scores topped pre-FCM (1999-2001; n = 382) scores (215.9 vs 207.7, respectively, p < .001). FCM cohort remained a significant predictor of higher step 2 scores after adjustment for USMLE step 1 and demographic characteristics (estimated coefficient = 4.3, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: A curriculum integrating clinical and basic sciences during third year clerkships is feasible and associated with improvement in standardized testing.

SUBMITTER: Brownfield EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2517913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) sequence and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones represent 2 major components along the continuum of assessment from undergraduate through graduate medical education. This study examines associations between USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores and ACGME emergency medicine (EM) milestone ratings.MethodIn February 2019, subject matter experts (SMEs) provided judgments of expected associations for each combination of Step examination and EM subcompetency. The resulting sets of subcompetencies with expected strong and weak associations were selected for convergent and discriminant validity analysis, respectively. National-level data for 2013-2018 were provided; the final sample included 6,618 EM residents from 158 training programs. Empirical bivariate correlations between milestone ratings and Step scores were calculated, then those correlations were compared with the SMEs' judgments. Multilevel regression analyses were conducted on the selected subcompetencies, in which milestone ratings were the dependent variable, and Step 1 score, Step 2 CK score, and cohort year were independent variables.ResultsRegression results showed small but statistically significant positive relationships between Step 2 CK score and the subcompetencies (regression coefficients ranged from 0.02 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01-0.03] to 0.12 [95% CI, 0.11-0.13]; all P < .05), with the degree of association matching the SMEs' judgments for 7 of the 9 selected subcompetencies. For example, a 1 standard deviation increase in Step 2 CK score predicted a 0.12 increase in MK-01 milestone rating, when controlling for Step 1. Step 1 score showed a small statistically significant effect with only the MK-01 subcompetency (regression coefficient = 0.06 [95% CI, 0.05-0.07], P < .05).ConclusionsThese results provide incremental validity evidence in support of Step 1 and Step 2 CK score and EM milestone rating uses.

Project description:BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of a change in preclerkship grading system from Honors/Pass/Fail (H/P/F) to Pass/Fail (P/F) on University of California, San Diego (UCSD) medical students' academic performance. METHODS: Academic performance of students in the classes of 2011 and 2012 (constant-grading classes) were collected and compared with performance of students in the class of 2013 (grading-change class) because the grading policy at UCSD SOM was changed for the class of 2013, from H/P/F during the first year (MS1) to P/F during the second year (MS2). For all students, data consisted of test scores from required preclinical courses from MS1 and MS2 years, and USMLE Step 1 scores. Linear regression analysis controlled for other factors that could be predictive of student performance (i.e., MCAT scores, undergraduate GPA, age, gender, etc.) in order to isolate the effect of the changed grading policy on academic performance. The change in grading policy in the MS2 year only, without any corresponding changes to the medical curriculum, presents a unique natural experiment with which to cleanly evaluate the effect of P/F grading on performance outcomes. RESULTS: After controlling for other factors, the grading policy change to P/F grading in the MS2 year had a negative impact on second-year grades relative to first-year grades (the constant-grading classes performed 1.65% points lower during their MS2 year compared to the MS1 year versus 3.25% points lower for the grading-change class, p?<?0.0001), but had no observable impact on USMLE Step 1 scores. CONCLUSIONS: A change in grading from H/P/F grading to P/F grading was associated with decreased performance on preclinical examinations but no decrease in performance on the USMLE Step 1 examination. These results are discussed in the broader context of the multitude of factors that should be considered in assessing the merits of various grading systems, and ultimately the authors recommend the continuation of pass-fail grading at UCSD School of Medicine.

Project description:Board scores are an important aspect of an emergency medicine (EM) residency application. Residency directors use these standardized tests to objectively evaluate an applicant's potential and help decide whether to interview a candidate. While allopathic (MD) students take the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), osteopathic (DO) students take the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX). It is difficult to compare these scores. Previous literature proposed an equation to predict USMLE based on COMLEX. Recent analyses suggested this may no longer be accurate. DO students applying to allopathic programs frequently ask whether they should take USMLE to overcome this potential disadvantage. The objective of the study is to compare the likelihood to match of DO applicants who reported USMLE to those who did not, and to clarify how important program directors consider it is whether or not an osteopathic applicant reported a USMLE score.We conducted a review of Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) data for 2010-2011 in conjunction with a survey of EM residency programs. We reviewed the number of allopathic and osteopathic applicants, the number of osteopathic applicants who reported a USMLE score, and the percentage of successful match. We compared the percentage of osteopathic applicants who reported a USMLE score who matched compared to those who did not report USMLE. We also surveyed allopathic EM residency programs to understand how important it is that osteopathic (DO) students take USMLE.There were 1,482 MD students ranked EM programs; 1,277 (86%, 95% CI 84.3-87.9) matched. There were 350 DO students ranked EM programs; 181 (52%, 95% CI 46.4-57.0) matched (difference=34%, 95% CI 29.8-39.0, p<0.0001). There were 208 DO students reported USMLE; 126 (61%, 95% CI 53.6-67.2) matched. 142 did not report USMLE; 55 (39%, 95% CI 30.7-47.3) matched (difference=22%, 95% CI 11.2-32.5, p<0.0001). Survey results: 39% of program directors reported that it is extremely important that osteopathic students take USMLE, 38% stated it is somewhat important, and 22% responded not at all important.DO students who reported USMLE were more likely to match. DO students applying to allopathic EM programs should consider taking USMLE to improve their chances of a successful match.

Project description:BackgroundUnited States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 will transition from numeric grading to pass/fail, sometime after January 2022. The aim of this study was to compare how program directors in orthopaedics and internal medicine perceive a pass/fail Step 1 will impact the residency application process.MethodsA 27-item survey was distributed through REDCap to 161 U.S. orthopaedic residency program directors and 548 U.S. internal medicine residency program directors. Program director emails were obtained from the American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database.ResultsWe received 58 (36.0%) orthopaedic and 125 (22.8%) internal medicine program director responses. The majority of both groups disagree with the change to pass/fail, and felt that the decision was not transparent. Both groups believe that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam and clerkship grades will take on more importance. Compared to internal medicine PDs, orthopaedic PDs were significantly more likely to emphasize research, letters of recommendation from known faculty, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, leadership/extracurricular activities, audition elective rotations, and personal knowledge of the applicant. Both groups believe that allopathic students from less prestigious medical schools, osteopathic students, and international medical graduates will be disadvantaged. Orthopaedic and internal medicine program directors agree that medical schools should adopt a graded pre-clinical curriculum, and that there should be a cap on the number of residency applications a student can submit.ConclusionOrthopaedic and internal medicine program directors disagree with the change of Step 1 to pass/fail. They also believe that this transition will make the match process more difficult, and disadvantage students from less highly-regarded medical schools. Both groups will rely more heavily on the Step 2 clinical knowledge exam score, but orthopaedics will place more importance on research, letters of recommendation, Alpha Omega Alpha membership, leadership/extracurricular activities, personal knowledge of the applicant, and audition electives.

Dataset Information

Impact of the foundations of clinical medicine course on USMLE scores.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets