How Increasing Research Demands Threaten Equity in Dermatology Residency Selection and Strategies for Reform.

In recent years, the evaluation metrics for dermatology residency applications have changed, particularly following the transition of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)Step 1 to a pass/fail grading system. This retrospective analysis examines dermatology residency match data from 2020 to 2024, focusing on trends in USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores and research publications. Data extracted from the National Resident Matching Program documents revealed a notable increase in unmatched applicants with Step 2 CK scores above 250 and a decrease in matched applicants with similar scores. Concurrently, research output has risen, with matched applicants reporting over 25 publications increasing from 80 in 2020 to 121 in 2024, and a corresponding increase among unmatched applicants from 10 to 35 over the same period. Despite these improvements in individual metrics, the overall match rates for applicants with high Step 2 CK scores and extensive research portfolios have declined, suggesting that excellence in these areas alone does not guarantee a successful match.

Impact of considering United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 pass/fail on diversity in dermatology residency recruitment.

United States Medical Licensure Examination step 1 scores and obstetrics-gynecology clerkship final examination

An Institutional Review: Which Metrics Correlate With a Successful United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Score?

In 2022, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 examination transitioned to a pass/fail format, altering the residency application process. Simultaneously, reforms to the application process, including the introduction of preference signaling, have also added a level of complexity. In orthopaedic surgery, these changes have influenced applicant behavior and program director (PD) priorities. This study examined the effect of the USMLE Step 1 scoring transition on orthopaedic surgery residency applicant characteristics and PD selection criteria, with particular attention to trends in USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, research productivity, and evolving PD preferences. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing aggregate data of orthopaedic surgery applicants in the National Resident Matching Program from 2014 to 2024 and the 2024 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey. From 2014 to 2024, the average Step 2 CK score of matched orthopaedic surgery applicants increased markedly, from 251 to 257 (P < 0.05). Research productivity also surged, with the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications increasing from 6.7 to 23.8 (P < 0.05) and mean number of research experiences increasing from 3.7 to 8.1 (P < 0.05) in the same period. Participating PDs prioritized Step 2 CK scores (94%), and a lesser percentage endorsed research involvement (64%) as important for interview. The Step 1 scoring has prompted shifts in applicant behavior, including increased research involvement and a maintained focus on Step 2 CK scores. The surge in research productivity suggests an increased focus on academic achievements in the absence of Step 1 scores. However, current data suggest a possible disconnect between applicant efforts and PD priorities, highlighting the need for greater participation in future research to clarify how these evolving priorities will influence selection practices.

United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 will transition to pass/fail score by 2022. We aim to investigate US medical students' perspectives on the potential implications this transition would have on their education and career opportunities. A cross-sectional study investigating US medical students' perspectives on the implications of transition of the USMLE Step 1 exam to pass/fail. Students were asked their preferences regarding various aspects of the USMLE Step 1 examination, including activities, educational opportunities, expenses regarding preparation for the examination, and future career opportunities. 215 medical students responded to the survey, 59.1% were women, 80.9% were allopathic vs. 19.1% osteopathic students. 34.0% preferred the USMLE Step 1 to be graded on a pass/fail score, whereas 53.5% preferred a numeric scale. Osteopathic vs. allopathic students were more likely to report that the pass/fail transition will negatively impact their residency match (aOR = 1.454, 95% CI: 0.515, 4.106) and specialty of choice (aOR = 3.187, 95% CI: 0.980, 10.359). 57.7% of respondents reported that the transition to a pass/fail grading system will change their study habits. The transition of the USMLE Step 1 to a pass/fail system has massive implications on medical students and residency programs alike. Though the majority of medical students did not prefer the USMLE Step 1 to have a pass/fail score, they must adapt their strategies to remain competitive for residency applications. Residency programs should create a composite score based off all aspects of medical students' applications in order to create a holistic and fair evaluation and ranking system.

Determine whether the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Subject Examination performance from six clerkships correlated with United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Steps 1 and 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Examination scores. Also, examine correlations between medical students' preclinical and clinical year mean cumulative grade point average (GPA), subject exam, and USMLE performance. The sample consisted of 507 students from the 2008-2010 graduating classes from the authors' medical school. Pearson correlations followed by stepwise linear regressions were used to investigate variance in USMLE Steps 1 and 2 CK scores explained by subject exam scores and GPA. Data from 484 (95.5%) students were included. USMLE Steps 1 and 2 CK scores had moderate-to-large positive correlations with all subject exam scores and with both GPA variables. Correlations between composite subject exam scores and USMLE Steps 1 and 2 CK exams were 0.69 and 0.77, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated that subject exams and GPA accounted for substantial variance in Steps 1 and 2 CK exam scores (62% and 61%); when entered into the regression model first, primary care clerkship subject examination scores accounted for most of this variance. The moderate-to-large correlations between subject exam performance and USMLE scores provide reassurance that subject exam scores are associated with USMLE performance. Furthermore, the considerable variance in USMLE scores accounted for by primary care NBME scores may be due to primary care topics being reinforced through all clerkships and comprising a significant portion of the USMLE examinations, particularly Step 2 CK.

Medical schools using formal undergrad-uate selectivity measures do so to compensate for the psychometricinadequacies of college grade-point averages, believing that moremeaning can be derived from the GPA if it is attached to a measureof institutional performance (academic rigor) or selectivity (strin-gent admission standards).Researchers have reported mixed results on whether formal mea-sures of undergraduate institution selectivity are useful contributorsto predicting medical student performance.

Demographic and applicant-specific predictors of medical school research productivity in a national cohort of dermatology residents.

The importance of publications, research, volunteer, and work experience in dermatology residency applicants

Holistic review for hematology-oncology fellowship applicants: A new paradigm?

An increasing number of medical schools have moved away from traditional 2 + 2 curricular structures toward curricula that intentionally integrate basic, clinical, and health systems science, with the goal of graduating physicians who consistently apply their foundational knowledge to clinical practice to improve the care of patients and populations. These curricular reforms often include a shortened preclerkship phase with earlier introduction of learners into clinical environments. This has led schools to reconsider the optimal timing of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1. A number of schools have shifted the exam to the period immediately after core clerkships. Although this shift can provide pedagogical advantages, there are potential challenges that must be anticipated and proactively addressed. As more institutions consider making this change, key educational leaders from five schools that repositioned the Step 1 exam after core clerkships share strategies for mitigating some of the potential challenges associated with this approach. The authors describe six possible challenges: lack of readiness without consolidation of basic science knowledge prior to clerkships; risk that weaker students will not be identified and provided academic support early; clerkship or clinical shelf exam performance weaknesses; extension of Step 1 study time; an increase in student anxiety about residency specialty choices; and/or a reduced time frame to take and pass board exams. These potential challenges may be addressed using three main strategies: effective communication with all stakeholders; curricular design and assessments that facilitate integration of basic and clinical sciences; and proactive student coaching and advising.

Correlation of USMLE Step 1 scores with performance on dermatology in-training examinations

The results of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 examinations are reported for students enrolled in a problem-based and traditional lecture-based curricula over a seven-year period at a single institution. There were no statistically significant differences in mean scores on either examination over the seven year period as a whole. There were statistically significant main effects noted by cohort year and curricular track for both the Step 1 and 2 examinations. These results support the general, long-term effectiveness of problem-based learning with respect to basic and clinical science knowledge acquisition. This paper reports the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 results for students enrolled in a problem-based and traditional lecture-based learning curricula over the seven-year period (1992-98) in order to evaluate the adequacy of each curriculum in supporting students learning of the basic and clinical sciences. Six hundred and eighty-nine students who took the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 540 students who took Step 2 for the first time over the seven-year period were included in the analyses. T-test analyses were utilized to compare students' Step 1 and Step 2 performance by curriculum groups. United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores over the seven-year period were 214 for Traditional Curriculum students and 208 for Parallel Curriculum students (t-value = 1.32, P=0.21). Mean Step 2 scores over the seven-year period were 208 for Traditional Curriculum students and 206 for Parallel Curriculum students (t-value=1.08, P=0.30). Statistically significant main effects were noted by cohort year and curricular track for both the Step 1 and Step 2 examinations. The totality of experience in both groups, although differing by curricular type, may be similar enough that the comparable scores are what should be expected. These results should be reassuring to curricular planners and faculty that problem-based learning can provide students with the knowledge needed for the subsequent phases of their medical education.

Introduction The results of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 examinations are reported for students enrolled in a problem-based and traditional lecture-based curricula over a seven-year period at a single institution. There were no statistically significant differences in mean scores on either examination over the seven year period as a whole. There were statistically significant main effects noted by cohort year and curricular track for both the Step 1 and 2 examinations. These results support the general, long-term effectiveness of problem-based learning with respect to basic and clinical science knowledge acquisition. Context This paper reports the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 results for students enrolled in a problem-based and traditional lecture-based learning curricula over the seven-year period (1992–98) in order to evaluate the adequacy of each curriculum in supporting students learning of the basic and clinical sciences. Methods Six hundred and eighty-nine students who took the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 540 students who took Step 2 for the first time over the seven-year period were included in the analyses. T-test analyses were utilized to compare students’ Step 1 and Step 2 performance by curriculum groups. Results United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores over the seven-year period were 214 for Traditional Curriculum students and 208 for Parallel Curriculum students (t-value = 1·32, P=0·21). Mean Step 2 scores over the seven-year period were 208 for Traditional Curriculum students and 206 for Parallel Curriculum students (t-value=1·08, P=0·30). Statistically significant main effects were noted by cohort year and curricular track for both the Step 1 and Step 2 examinations. Conclusion The totality of experience in both groups, although differing by curricular type, may be similar enough that the comparable scores are what should be expected. These results should be reassuring to curricular planners and faculty that problem-based learning can provide students with the knowledge needed for the subsequent phases of their medical education.