ArticleFrontiers in medicine2021
Validity and Reliability of Pre-matriculation and Institutional Assessments in Predicting USMLE STEP 1 Success: Lessons From a Traditional 2 x 2 Curricular Model.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The hidden patterns of alignment: exploring variability between generative AI and human.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Exploring LCME's New USMLE Norms of Accomplishment: Medical School Self-Reflection to Support Continuous Quality Improvement.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe have observed that students' performance in our pre-clerkship curriculum does not align well with their United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) STEP1 scores. Students at-risk of failing or underperforming on STEP1 have often excelled on our institutional assessments. We sought to test the validity and reliability of our course assessments in predicting STEP1 scores, and in the process, generate and validate a more accurate prediction model for STEP1 performance.
methodsStudent pre-matriculation and course assessment data of the Class of 2020 (
resultsSTEP1 predictions based on pre-matriculation data are unreliable and fail to identify at-risk students (R2 = 0.02). STEP1 predictions for most year one courses (anatomy, biochemistry, physiology) correlate poorly with students' actual STEP1 scores (R
conclusionMCAT and undergraduate GPA are poor predictors of student's STEP1 scores. Partially integrated courses with biweekly assessments do not promote problem-solving skills and leave students' at-risk of failing STEP1. Only courses with integrated and comprehensive assessments are reliable indicators of students' STEP1 preparation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.