scholarly journals Numerical Versus Pass/Fail Scoring on the USMLE: What Do Medical Students and Residents Want and Why?

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine E Lewis ◽  
Jonathan R Hiatt ◽  
LuAnn Wilkerson ◽  
Areti Tillou ◽  
Neil H Parker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although the primary purpose of the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is assessment for licensure, USMLE scores often are used for other purposes, more prominently resident selection. The Committee to Evaluate the USMLE Program currently is considering a number of substantial changes, including conversion to pass/fail scoring. Methods A survey was administered to third-year (MS3) and fourth-year (MS4) medical students and residents at a single institution to evaluate opinions regarding pass/fail scoring on the USMLE. Results Response rate was 59% (n  =  732 of 1249). Reported score distribution for Step 1 was 30% for <220, 38% for 220–240, and 32% for >240, with no difference between MS3s, MS4s, and residents (P  =  .89). Score distribution for Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) was similar. Only 26% of respondents agreed that Step 1 should be pass/fail; 38% agreed with pass/fail scoring for Step 2 CK. Numerical scoring on Step 1 was preferred by respondents who: (1) agreed that the examination gave an accurate estimate of knowledge (odds ratio [OR], 4.23; confidence interval [CI], 2.41–7.43; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.0; CI, 1.92–8.33; P < .001); and (3) felt that acquisition of knowledge might decrease if the examination were pass/fail (OR, 10.15; CI, 3.32–31.02; P < .001). For Step 2 CK, numerical scoring was preferred by respondents who: (1) believed they gained a large amount of knowledge preparing for the examination (OR, 2.63; CI, 1.52–4.76; P < .001); (2) scored >240 (OR, 4.76; CI, 2.86–8.33; P < .001); (3) felt that the amount of knowledge acquired might decrease if it were pass/fail (OR, 28.16; CI, 7.31–108.43; P < .001); and (4) believed their Step 2 CK score was important when applying for residency (OR, 2.37; CI, 1.47–3.84; P < .001). Conclusions Students and residents prefer the ongoing use of numerical scoring because they believe that scores are important in residency selection, that residency applicants are advantaged by examination scores, and that scores provide an important impetus to review and solidify medical knowledge.

2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (1) ◽  
pp. 275-279
Author(s):  
Travis H. Markham ◽  
Johanna B. de Haan ◽  
Sara Guzman-Reyes ◽  
Lauren D. Brollier ◽  
Amber N. Campbell ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-446
Author(s):  
Elaine R. Cohen ◽  
Joshua L. Goldstein ◽  
Clara J. Schroedl ◽  
Nancy Parlapiano ◽  
William C. McGaghie ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores are often used to inform a variety of secondary medical career decisions, such as residency selection, despite the lack of validity evidence supporting their use in these contexts. Objective We compared USMLE scores between non–chief residents (non-CRs) and chief residents (CRs), selected based on performance during training, at a US academic medical center that sponsors a variety of graduate medical education programs. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of residents' USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores from 2015 to 2020. The authors used archived data to compare USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores between non-CR residents in each of the eligible programs and their CRs during the 6-year study period. Results Thirteen programs enrolled a total of 1334 non-CRs and 211 CRs over the study period. There were no significant differences overall between non-CRs and CRs average USMLE Step 1 (239.81 ± 14.35 versus 240.86 ± 14.31; P = .32) or Step 2 scores (251.06 ± 13.80 versus 252.51 ± 14.21; P = .16). Conclusions There was no link between USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and CR selection across multiple clinical specialties over a 6-year period. Reliance on USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores to predict success in residency as measured by CR selection is not recommended.


2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong Woo Park ◽  
Ki Young Yoon ◽  
Ho Joong Jeong ◽  
Won Gyu Kim ◽  
Hyun Yong Hwang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document