scholarly journals Understanding the Interview and Ranking Behaviors of Unmatched International Medical Students and Graduates in the 2013 Main Residency Match

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 610-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei Liang ◽  
Laurie S. Curtin ◽  
Mona M. Signer ◽  
Maria C. Savoia
Keyword(s):  
Rank Order ◽  
International Medical ◽  
First Year ◽  
School Students ◽  
The Past ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Residency Match

ABSTRACT Background  Over the past decade, the number of unfilled positions in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Main Residency Match has declined by one-third, while the number of unmatched applicants has grown by more than 50%, largely due to a rise in the number of international medical school students and graduates (IMGs). Although only half of IMG participants historically have matched to a first-year position, the Match experiences of unmatched IMGs have not been studied. Objective  We examined differences in interview and ranking behaviors between matched and unmatched IMGs participating in the 2013 Match and explored strategic errors made by unmatched IMGs when creating rank order lists. Methods  Rank order lists of IMGs who failed to match were analyzed in conjunction with their United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores and responses on the 2013 NRMP Applicant Survey. IMGs were categorized as “strong,” “solid,” “marginal,” or “weak” based on the perceived competitiveness of their USMLE Step 1 scores compared to other IMG applicants who matched in the same specialty. We examined ranking preferences and strategies by Match outcome. Results  Most unmatched IMGs were categorized as “marginal” or “weak”. However, unmatched IMGs who were non-US citizens presented more competitive USMLE Step 1 scores compared to unmatched IMGs who were US citizens. Unmatched IMGs were more likely than matched IMGs to rank programs at which they did not interview and to rank programs based on their perceived likelihood of matching. Conclusions  The interview and ranking behaviors of IMGs can have far-reaching consequences on their Match experience and outcomes.

The State of the Otolaryngology Match: A Review of Applicant Trends, “Impossible” Qualifications, and Implications

2017 ◽  
Vol 156 (6) ◽  
pp. 985-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah N. Bowe ◽  
Cecelia E. Schmalbach ◽  
Adrienne M. Laury
Keyword(s):  
The Past ◽  
Application Service ◽  
Research Publications ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Residency Application ◽  
The Relationship

Objective This State of the Art Review aims (1) to define recent qualifications of otolaryngology resident applicants by focusing on United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, and research/publications and (2) to summarize the current literature regarding the relationship between these measures and performance in residency. Data Sources Electronic Residency Application Service, National Residency Matching Program, PubMed, Ovid, and GoogleScholar. Review Methods Electronic Residency Application Service and National Residency Matching Program data were analyzed to evaluate trends in applicant numbers and qualifications. Additionally, a literature search was performed with the aforementioned databases to identify relevant articles published in the past 5 years that examined USMLE Step 1 scores, AOA status, and research/publications. Conclusions Compared with other highly competitive fields over the past 3 years, the only specialty with decreasing applicant numbers is otolaryngology, with the rest remaining relatively stable or slightly increased. Additionally, USMLE Step 1 scores, AOA status, and research/publications do not reliably correlate with performance in residency. Implications for Practice The consistent decline in applications for otolaryngology residency is concerning and reflects a need for change in the current stereotype of the “ideal” otolaryngology applicant. This includes consideration of additional selection measures focusing on noncognitive and holistic qualities. Furthermore, otolaryngology faculty should counsel medical students that applying in otolaryngology is not “impossible” but rather a feasible and worthwhile endeavor.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a course to prepare international students for the United States Medical Licensing Examination step 2 clinical skills exam

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel B. Levine ◽  
Andrew P. Levy ◽  
Robert Lubin ◽  
Sarah Halevi ◽  
Rebeca Rios ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Medical ◽  
Pass Rate ◽  
Pass Rates ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step

Purpose: United States (US) and Canadian citizens attending medical school abroad often desire to return to the US for residency, and therefore must pass US licensing exams. We describe a 2-day United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 2 clinical skills (CS) preparation course for students in the Technion American Medical School program (Haifa, Israel) between 2012 and 2016.Methods: Students completed pre- and post-course questionnaires. The paired t-test was used to measure students’ perceptions of knowledge, preparation, confidence, and competence in CS pre- and post-course. To test for differences by gender or country of birth, analysis of variance was used. We compared USMLE step 2 CS pass rates between the 5 years prior to the course and the 5 years during which the course was offered.Results: Ninety students took the course between 2012 and 2016. Course evaluations began in 2013. Seventy-three students agreed to participate in the evaluation, and 64 completed the pre- and post-course surveys. Of the 64 students, 58% were US-born and 53% were male. Students reported statistically significant improvements in confidence and competence in all areas. No differences were found by gender or country of origin. The average pass rate for the 5 years prior to the course was 82%, and the average pass rate for the 5 years of the course was 89%.Conclusion: A CS course delivered at an international medical school may help to close the gap between the pass rates of US and international medical graduates on a high-stakes licensing exam. More experience is needed to determine if this model is replicable.

scholarly journals The Use of COMLEX-USA and USMLE for Residency Applicant Selection

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne M. Sandella ◽  
John R. Gimpel ◽  
Larissa L. Smith ◽  
John R. Boulet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
State Medical Boards ◽  
Phi Coefficient

ABSTRACT  The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) and the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) are recognized by all state medical licensing boards in the United States, and the Federation of State Medical Boards has supported the validity of both examinations for medical licensure. Many osteopathic medical students take both examinations.Background  The purpose of this study was to investigate performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 of students from colleges of osteopathic medicine where the majority of students took both examinations.Objective  Data were collected on the entering classes of 2010 and 2011. Relationships between the COMLEX-USA Level 1 and the USMLE Step 1 were quantified using Pearson correlations. The correlation between outcomes on the 2 examinations was evaluated using the phi coefficient. A contingency table was constructed to look at first-attempt outcomes (pass/fail).Methods  Data for 2010 and 2011 were collected from 3 osteopathic medical schools, with 795 of 914 students (87%) taking both examinations. The correlation between first-attempt COMLEX-USA Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 scores was statistically significant across and within all 3 schools. The overall correlation was r(795) = 0.84 (P < .001). Pass/fail status on the 2 examinations was moderately correlated (ϕ = 0.39, P < .01).Results  Our study found a strong association between COMLEX Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 performance. Additional studies to accurately compare scores on these examinations are warranted.Conclusions

scholarly journals The United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Is Changing—US Medical Curricula Should Too

10.2196/20182 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e20182
Author(s):  
Benjamin Liu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Traditional Lectures ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step

In recent years, US medical students have been increasingly absent from medical school classrooms. They do so to maximize their competitiveness for a good residency program, by achieving high scores on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. As a US medical student, I know that most of these class-skipping students are utilizing external learning resources, which are perceived to be more efficient than traditional lectures. Now that the USMLE Step 1 is adopting a pass/fail grading system, it may be tempting to expect students to return to traditional basic science lectures. Unfortunately, my experiences tell me this will not happen. Instead, US medical schools must adapt their curricula. These new curricula should focus on clinical decision making, team-based learning, and new medical decision technologies, while leveraging the validated ability of these external resources to teach the basic sciences. In doing so, faculty will not only increase student engagement but also modernize the curricula to meet new standards on effective medical learning.

scholarly journals Using Markov chain model to evaluate medical students’ trajectory on progress tests and predict USMLE step 1 scores---a retrospective cohort study in one medical school

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ling Wang ◽  
Heather S. Laird-Fick ◽  
Carol J. Parker ◽  
David Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Markov Chain ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Markov Chain Model ◽  
First Year ◽  
Chain Model ◽  
Progress Test ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step

Abstract Background Medical students must meet curricular expectations and pass national licensing examinations to become physicians. However, no previous studies explicitly modeled stages of medical students acquiring basic science knowledge. In this study, we employed an innovative statistical model to characterize students’ growth using progress testing results over time and predict licensing examination performance. Methods All students matriculated from 2016 to 2017 in our medical school with USMLE Step 1 test scores were included in this retrospective cohort study (N = 358). Markov chain method was employed to: 1) identify latent states of acquiring scientific knowledge based on progress tests and 2) estimate students’ transition probabilities between states. The primary outcome of this study, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 performance, were predicted based on students’ estimated probabilities in each latent state identified by Markov chain model. Results Four latent states were identified based on students’ progress test results: Novice, Advanced Beginner I, Advanced Beginner II and Competent States. At the end of the first year, students predicted to remain in the Novice state had lower mean Step 1 scores compared to those in the Competent state (209, SD = 14.8 versus 255, SD = 10.8 respectively) and had more first attempt failures (11.5% versus 0%). On regression analysis, it is found that at the end of the first year, if there was 10% higher chance staying in Novice State, Step 1 scores will be predicted 2.0 points lower (95% CI: 0.85–2.81 with P < .01); while 10% higher chance in Competent State, Step 1scores will be predicted 4.3 points higher (95% CI: 2.92–5.19 with P < .01). Similar findings were also found at the end of second year medical school. Conclusions Using the Markov chain model to analyze longitudinal progress test performance offers a flexible and effective estimation method to identify students’ transitions across latent stages for acquiring scientific knowledge. The results can help identify students who are at-risk for licensing examination failure and may benefit from targeted academic support.

scholarly journals Ophthalmology Program Director Perspectives of Scoring Step 1 Pass/Fail

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. e251-e254
Author(s):  
Saif A. Hamdan ◽  
Alan T. Makhoul ◽  
Brian C. Drolet ◽  
Jennifer L. Lindsey ◽  
Janice C. Law
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Medical Graduates ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Residency Application ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was recently announced to be reported as binary as early as 2022. The general perception among program directors (PDs) in all specialties has largely been negative, but the perspective within ophthalmology remains uncharacterized. Objective This article characterizes ophthalmology residency PDs' perspectives regarding the impact of pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring on the residency application process. Methods A validated 19-item anonymous survey was electronically distributed to 111 PDs of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited ophthalmology training programs. Results Fifty-six PDs (50.5%) completed the survey. The median age of respondents was 48 years and the majority were male (71.4%); the average tenure as PD was 7.1 years. Only 6 (10.7%) PDs reported the change of the USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail was a good idea. Most PDs (92.9%) indicated that this will make it more difficult to objectively compare applicants, and many (69.6%) did not agree that the change would improve medical student well-being. The majority (82.1%) indicated that there will be an increased emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, and many (70.4%) felt that medical school reputation will be more important in application decisions. Conclusion Most ophthalmology PDs who responded to the survey do not support binary Step 1 scoring. Many raised concerns regarding shifted overemphasis on Step 2 CK, uncertain impact on student well-being, and potential to disadvantage certain groups of medical students including international medical graduates. These concerns highlight the need for reform in the ophthalmology application process.

scholarly journals The United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Is Changing—US Medical Curricula Should Too (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Liu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Traditional Lectures ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step

UNSTRUCTURED In recent years, US medical students have been increasingly absent from medical school classrooms. They do so to maximize their competitiveness for a good residency program, by achieving high scores on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. As a US medical student, I know that most of these class-skipping students are utilizing external learning resources, which are perceived to be more efficient than traditional lectures. Now that the USMLE Step 1 is adopting a pass/fail grading system, it may be tempting to expect students to return to traditional basic science lectures. Unfortunately, my experiences tell me this will not happen. Instead, US medical schools must adapt their curricula. These new curricula should focus on clinical decision making, team-based learning, and new medical decision technologies, while leveraging the validated ability of these external resources to teach the basic sciences. In doing so, faculty will not only increase student engagement but also modernize the curricula to meet new standards on effective medical learning.

scholarly journals Reliability and Validity of Conversion Formulas Between Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States Level 1 and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert S. Lee ◽  
Lynn Chang ◽  
Eric Feng ◽  
Scott Helf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Usmle Step 1 ◽  
Licensing Examination ◽  
Usmle Step ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
College Of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract Background The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores are important factors in the selection process of medical students into US residency programs. Objectives The goals of this study were to investigate the correlation between the COMLEX-USA Level 1 and the USMLE Step 1 and to assess the accuracy of the existing formulas in predicting USMLE scores from COMLEX-USA scores. Methods A retrospective study of 1016 paired COMLEX-USA Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 scores was conducted. Formulas by Sarko et al and by Slocum and Louder were used to estimate USMLE Step 1 scores from COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores, and a paired t test between calculated USMLE Step 1 scores and actual USMLE Step 1 scores was performed. Results During 2006–2012, 1016 of 1440 students (71%) took both the USMLE Step 1 and the COMLEX-USA Level 1 tests in the College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific. The USMLE Step 1 scores were higher than those predicted by Slocum and Louder and by Sarko et al by an average of 14.16 ± 11.69 (P &lt; .001) and 7.80 ± 12.48 (P &lt; .001), respectively. A Pearson coefficient of 0.83 was observed. Regression analysis yielded the following formula: USMLE Step 1  =  0.2392 × COMLEX-USA Level 1 + 82.563 (R2  =  0.69577). Conclusions The USMLE Step 1 scores, on average, were higher than those predicted by the formulas derived by Slocum and Louder and by Sarko et al. Residency program directors should use caution when using formulas to derive USMLE Step 1 scores from COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document