IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional differences in USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK performance: Cross-sectional study of 89 US allopathic medical schools

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse Burk-Rafel
  • Ricardo W Pulido
  • Yousef Elfanagely
  • Joseph C Kolars

Abstract

Introduction: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) are important for trainee medical knowledge assessment and licensure, medical school program assessment, and residency program applicant screening. Little is known about how USMLE performance varies between institutions. This observational study attempts to identify institutions with above-predicted USMLE performance, which may indicate educational programs successful at promoting students’ medical knowledge. Methods: Self-reported institution-level data was tabulated from publicly available US News and World Report and Association of American Medical Colleges publications for 131 US allopathic medical schools from 2012–2014. Bivariate and multiple linear regression were performed. The primary outcome was institutional mean USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores outside a 95% prediction interval (≥2 standard deviations above or below predicted) based on multiple regression accounting for students’ prior academic performance. Results: Eighty-nine US medical schools (54 public, 35 private) reported complete USMLE scores over the three-year study period, representing over 39,000 examinees. Institutional mean grade point average (GPA) and Medical College Admission Test score (MCAT) achieved an adjusted R2 of 72% for Step 1 (standardized βMCAT 0.7, βGPA 0.2) and 41% for Step 2 CK (standardized βMCAT 0.5, βGPA 0.3) in multiple regression. Using this regression model, 5 institutions were identified with above-predicted institutional USMLE performance, while 3 institutions had below-predicted performance. Conclusions: This exploratory study identified several US allopathic medical schools with significant above- or below-predicted USMLE performance. Although limited by self-reported data, the findings raise questions about inter-institutional USMLE performance parity, and thus, educational parity. Additional work is needed to determine the etiology and robustness of the observed performance differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse Burk-Rafel & Ricardo W Pulido & Yousef Elfanagely & Joseph C Kolars, 2019. "Institutional differences in USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK performance: Cross-sectional study of 89 US allopathic medical schools," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-10, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224675
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224675
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224675&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224675?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.