ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Observations of Score Changes Between USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Among Students of Different Demographic Groups in a Longitudinal Clinical Curriculum.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 to a pass/fail scoring system is reshaping its role in medical students' residency placements. This compels institutions to rethink Step 2 preparation strategies, raising concerns about a clerkship's impact on various student groups. Traditionally, medical schools followed the traditional block rotation model for clerkships, which limits longitudinal learning, and many schools are switching to longitudinal integrated clerkships and longitudinal interleaved clerkships (LInCs). The growth in longitudinal popularity sparks concern for the success of diverse medical student groups as there is minimal research regarding LInC students' USMLE performance. Our study aims to identify which student groups at Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (KSOM) saw the greatest improvement in their USMLE Step scores after completing the LInC clerkship model.
methodUtilizing institutional data from KSOM, 145 students from 3 KSOM cohorts' Step 1 and Step 2 3-digit scores and their self-identified demographic information prior to the change in Step 1 grading were categorized by admissions and initial performance factors. Binary groups were created for each variable. Descriptive statistics and t-tests (including Levene's test) gauged score change significance (
resultsAnalysis revealed significant score improvements between Step 1 and Step 2 for the following groups: females, students with low socioeconomic status, and students who originally received lower Step 1 scores.
conclusionThis study underscores the significance of gender, socioeconomic status, and prior exam performance in clerkship model development given the changes to Step 1 scoring. Further research should discern whether the observed score changes are attributed to the LInC model or its associated testing model.
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.