Internal medicine residency program director perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring: A cross-sectional survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mun F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8052063 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Internal medicine residency program director perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring: A cross-sectional survey.
Mun Frederick F Scott Alyssa R AR Cui David D Chisty Alia A Hennrikus William L WL Hennrikus Eileen F EF
Medicine 20210401 15
Similar Datasets
Project description:Rationale and objectivesIn February 2020, administrators for the US medical licensing examination (USMLE) announced that Step 1 reporting would change to pass/fail in hopes of reducing the overemphasis of USMLE performance on the residency selection system and improving medical student well-being. Our objective was to determine the perspectives of diagnostic radiology (DR), interventional radiology (IR), and nuclear medicine (NM) program directors (PDs) regarding pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring.Materials and methodsA survey composed of thirteen questions on a three-point Likert scale, five demographic questions, and a free-text question was distributed to 179 DR, 84 IR, and 34 NM PDs from ACGME-accredited residency programs.ResultsIn total, 140 unique responses were obtained (response rate = 47.1%). The PD respondents had a male predominance of 79.1%, average age of 46 ± 7.2 years, and average tenure of 5.9 ± 5.2 years. A majority of PDs (69.6%) disagreed that the change is a good idea, and a minority (21.6%) believe the change will improve medical student well-being. Further, 90.7% of PDs believe a pass/fail format will make it more difficult to objectively compare applicants and most will place more emphasis on USMLE Step 2 scores and medical school reputation (89.3% and 72.7%, respectively).ConclusionThe lasting impact of pass/fail Step 1 scoring are uncertain and many radiology PDs do not support this change. While the central motivations to reduce the overemphasis on USMLE Step 1 performance and improve medical student well-being are admirable, it remains to be seen if pass/fail scoring will accomplish these goals.
| S-EPMC7485567 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8091716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Beginning January 26, 2022, the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 changed from a numerical score to pass/fail (P/F). The purpose of this study was to determine the perspective of ophthalmology program directors regarding this change in evaluating applicants. Methods After institutional review board approval, a survey was sent out to program directors of all 125 ophthalmology programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Survey questions asked for program demographics, the utility of USMLE Step 1 and 2 Clinical Knowledge scores in assessing applicants, and the importance of 16 different applicant metrics before and after Step 1 becomes P/F. The metrics examined were: letters of recommendation; clerkship grades; class ranking; Alpha Omega Alpha Membership; Gold Humanism Honor Society Membership; Dean's Letter; involvement and leadership; personal statement; number of abstracts, presentations, and publications; mean number of research experiences in the specialty; Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score; volunteering; preclinical grades; away rotation in the specialty; the applicant having another graduate degree; and graduation from a top 40 National Institutes of Health-funded program. Data were analyzed using nonoverlapping 95% confidence intervals. Results The survey was completed by 50 (40%) program directors. Sixty-eight percent of respondents stated a student's ranking would be considered more after USMLE Step 1 scores become P/F, and 60% stated medical schools should share clerkship shelf exam scores with residency programs. There were no significant differences in program directors' rankings of applicant metrics following the transition to P/F Step 1. Conclusion Based on our data, program directors will likely not place a greater emphasis on Step 2 scores, despite it being the only remaining objective measure for all applicants following the switch to a P/F Step 1. Nevertheless, program directors expressed an interest in receiving other objective measures, such as shelf exam scores and class ranking, as part of the application process. Notably, we found no significant changes in the rankings of various applicant metrics before and after the transition to P/F Step 1, indicating that the metrics that were important to program directors prior to the change remain just as critical in the new era of admissions.
| S-EPMC10645543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine students' perceptions of pass/fail scoring for Step 1, particularly when applying to competitive specialties. This study also investigated whether this transition increased anxiety among medical students and elicited student perspectives on the most critical components of residency applications.IntroductionThe United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 Board Exam transitioned from a traditional numeric score to pass/fail for exams taken on or after January 26, 2022. One justification for this change, according to a statement from USMLE, was to ease the transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education. Although many factors are considered when selecting candidates to interview for residency, Step 1 scores were historically used as an important metric. Few studies specifically evaluated medical student's attitudes toward the change in Step 1 grading.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to Penn State College of Medicine medical students in the 2024 to 2027 classes. Statistical analysis was conducted on responses to research plans, attitudes regarding Step 1 pass/fail, match rates, and importance of application components.ResultsThere was a 21.3% response rate (127/596) to the survey with 30.7% pursuing a competitive specialty. Students applying into competitive specialties felt their chances of matching changed significantly compared to students applying to other specialties (either increased (25.6% vs 10.2%, P < .001), or decreased (28.2% vs10.3%, P < .001). Majority of students (73.2%) agreed with the decision to make Step 1 pass/fail, however, students reported increased anxiety surrounding Step 2 scores. There was a significant association between which aspects students believed were most important for matching (letters of recommendation and performance on Acting Internships) and those they believed program directors would weigh heaviest (P < .001).ConclusionMedical students report increased anxiety with Step 2 after Step 1 became pass/fail, although students overwhelmingly agreed with this change. To address this, medical schools should offer further guidance and resources to students, focusing on mentorship and methods to optimize residency applications for their chosen specialties.
| S-EPMC11437557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study sought to evaluate the perspectives of surgical program directors regarding the change of USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail grading.DesignValidated electronic survey.SettingVanderbilt University Medical Center Department of Plastic Surgery.ParticipantsProgram directors of all ACMGE-accredited General Surgery, Integrated Vascular Surgery, Integrated Thoracic Surgery, and Integrated Plastic Surgery residency programs.ResultsThe overall response rate was 55.5%. Most PDs (78.1%) disagreed with the scoring change. Only 19.6% believe this change will improve medical student well-being. For 63.5% of PDs, medical school pedigree will become more important, and 52.7% believe it will place international medical graduates at a disadvantage. Only 6.2% believe Step 2 CK should also be pass/fail, while 88.7% will increase the weight of Step 2 CK and 88.4% will now require Step 2 CK score submission with the electronic residency application service.ConclusionsWhile well-intentioned, changing USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail may have unintended consequences and may disadvantage certain groups of applicants. The emphasis on Step 1, and resulting test-taking apprehension, will likely shift to Step 2 CK. Proponents of equitable evaluation should direct their efforts toward increasing, not decreasing, the number of objective measures available for student assessment.
| S-EPMC7347473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPass/fail USMLE Step 1 score reporting may have varying implications for trainees of different demographic and training backgrounds.ObjectiveTo characterize the perspectives of a diverse cohort of trainees on the impact of pass/fail Step 1 score reporting.MethodsIn 2020, 197 US and international medical school deans and 822 designated institutional officials were invited to distribute anonymous electronic surveys among their trainees. Separate surveys for medical students and residents/fellows were developed based on the authors' prior work surveying program directors on this topic. Underrepresented in medicine (UiM) was defined in accordance with AAMC definitions. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed, and results were considered statistically significant with P < .05.ResultsA total of 11 633 trainees responded (4379 medical students and 7254 residents/fellows; 3.3% of an estimated 285 000 US trainees). More students favored the score reporting change than residents/fellows (43% vs 31%; P < .001; 95% CI 0-24). Trainees identifying as UiM were more likely to favor the change (50% vs 34%; P < .001; 95% CI 0-32) and to agree it would decrease socioeconomic disparities (44% vs 25%; P < .001; 95% CI 0-38) relative to non-UiM trainees. Nearly twice as many osteopathic and international medical graduate students felt they would be disadvantaged compared to MD students because of pass/fail score reporting (61% vs 31%; P < .001; 95% CI 0-60).ConclusionsTrainee perspectives regarding USMLE Step 1 score reporting are mixed. UiM trainees were more likely to favor the score reporting change, while osteopathic and international medical students were less in favor of the change.
| S-EPMC8527955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Beginning 26 January 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 changed from a numerical score to Pass/Fail. Historically, residency programs have used Step 1 scores as a valuable metric in assessing the competitiveness of applicants. We assessed how residency program criteria will change when evaluating applicants after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. A survey was distributed to the program directors of all 144 pathology residency programs accredited by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Survey questions evaluated the importance of using Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores when assessing applicants. Participants were asked to rank a list of applicant criteria used before and after Step 1 becomes Pass/Fail. Data were analyzed using chi-squared and paired t-tests with significance at P < 0.05. A total of 34 residency program directors (23.6%) responded to the survey. 76.5% (P< 0.001) of responders believed Step 1 scores were able to predict a resident's ability to pass their board exams, while 41.2% believed Step 2 CK could predict a resident's ability to pass board exams and perform clinically in pathology (P = 0.282). 61.8% of responders agreed that an applicant's medical school ranking would become more important (P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in the relative importance of 16 selection criteria after the change of Step 1 to Pass/Fail. It does not appear that Step 2 CK will become more important. Although results are constrained by a 23.6% response rate, it can be a start to guiding future students through residency applications.
| S-EPMC10164826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pass/fail (P/F) grading has emerged as an alternative to tiered clerkship grading. Systematically evaluating existing literature and surveying program directors (PD) perspectives on these consequential changes can guide educators in addressing inequalities in academia and students aiming to improve their residency applications. In our survey, a total of 1578 unique PD responses (63.1%) were obtained across 29 medical specialties. With the changes to United States Medical Licensure Examination (USMLE), responses showed increased importance of core clerkships with the implementation of Step 2CK cutoffs. PDs believed core clerkship performance was a reliable representation of an applicant's preparedness for residency, particularly in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME)Medical Knowledge and Patient Care and Procedural Skills. PDs disagreed with P/F core clerkships because it more difficult to objectively compare applicants. No statistically significant differences in responses were found in PD preferential selection when comparing applicants from tiered and P/F core clerkship grading systems. If core clerkships adopted P/F scoring, PDs would further increase emphasis on narrative assessment, sub-internship evaluation, reference letters, academic awards, professional development and medical school prestige. In the meta-analysis, of 6 studies from 2,118 participants, adjusted scaled scores with mean difference from an equal variance model from PDs showed residents from tiered clerkship grading systems overall performance, learning ability, work habits, personal evaluations, residency selection and educational evaluation were not statistically significantly different than from residents from P/F systems. Overall, our dual study suggests that while PDs do not favor P/F core clerkships, PDs do not have a selection preference and do not report a difference in performance between applicants from P/F vs. tiered grading core clerkship systems, thus providing fertile grounds for institutions to examine the feasibility of adopting P/F grading for core clerkships.
| S-EPMC10598945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo 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.MethodsAcademic 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.ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionsA 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.
| S-EPMC4083104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The development of autonomy is a key component of residency training. Although studies have examined levels of graduated autonomy within specialties, they have not, to our knowledge, examined how residents' perceptions of autonomy differ among specialties. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed residents in internal medicine-pediatrics programs to determine their perceptions of the autonomy they experienced when they were serving on internal medicine (IM) and pediatrics inpatient rotations. METHODS: In 2012, we administered a 24-item online survey to residents in 36 internal medicine-pediatrics programs. RESULTS: Of 698 eligible residents, 143 (20.5%) participated. Participants were distributed equally among all 4 postgraduate years and between IM and pediatrics rotations. Participants were more likely to agree they experienced an appropriate level of autonomy when they were on IM rotations than when they were on pediatrics rotations (97.9% versus 34.3%, P < .001), were more likely to report experiencing frustration with too little oversight while on IM rotations (32.9% versus 2.2%, P < .001), and were more likely to report experiencing frustration with too much oversight while on pediatrics rotations (48.2% versus 0.7%, P < .001). Responses to items that described frequently encountered circumstances and hypothetical medical cases indicated participants were more likely to feel anxiety and discomfort with autonomous decision making while on pediatrics rotations. CONCLUSIONS: Residents in internal medicine-pediatrics programs perceive significant differences in the autonomy they experience during IM and pediatrics rotations. This may influence their confidence in medical decision making.
| S-EPMC4054737 | biostudies-other