Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Research Articles

The 7 Elements Communication Rating Form for Teaching and Assessing Medical Communication Competency.

Medical communication skills are a critical component of clinical medicine and patient satisfaction.Communication skills are difficult to teach and evaluate, necessitating tools that are effective and efficient. This study presents and validates the 7 Elements Communication Rating Form (7E-CRF), a streamlined, dual-purpose, evidence-based medical communication checklist that functions as a teaching and assessment tool. A 14-item teaching and assessment tool is described and validated using face, concurrent, and predictive validity indices.The study was conducted with 661 medical students from the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine (WVSOM).Student performance was assessed in year 1 labs, year 2 labs, and year 2 and year 3 objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).These internal indices were compared with student performance on the Humanistic Domain of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2-Performance Evaluation (PE), a licensure exam previously taken in years 3 or 4 of osteopathic medical schools. The evidence of interrater reliability and predictive validity is strong. Data from the 7E-CRF is compared to performance on the COMLEX Level 2-PE, Humanistic Domain. The 7E-CRF can identify students who are at a 10-fold increased risk of failure on the COMLEX Level 2-PE Humanistic Domain. Conclusions:The 7E-CRF integrates instruction and assessment, based on a national and international model. The simplicity, foundation in professional consensus, ease of use, and predictive efficacy make the 7E-CRF a highly valuable instrument for medical schools in teaching and evaluating competency in medical communication skills.

Can USMLE and COMLEX-USA Scores Predict At-Risk Emergency Medicine Residents' Performance on In-Training Examinations?

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) scores are standard methods used to determine residency candidates' medical knowledge. The authors were interested in using the USMLE and COMLEX part 2 scores in our emergency medicine (EM) residency program to identify at-risk residents who may have difficulty on the in-training exam (ITE) and to determine the cutoff values under which an intern could be given an individualized study plan to ensure medical knowledge competency. The authors abstracted the USMLE and COMLEX part 2 scores and the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) ITE scores for a cohort of first-year EM residents graduating years 2010-2022, converting raw scores to percentiles, and compared part 2 and ABEM ITE scores with Pearson's correlation, a Bland-Altman analysis of bias and 95% limits of agreement, and ROC analysis to determine optimal the cut-off values for predicting ABEM ITE < 50th percentile and the estimated test characteristics. Scores were available for 152 residents, including 93 USMLE and 88 COMLEX exams. The correlations between part 2 scores and ABEM ITE were r = 0.36 (95%CI: 0.17, 0.52; p < 0.001) for USMLE and r = 0.50 (95%CI: 0.33, 0.64; p < 0.001) for COMLEX. Bias and limits of agreement for both part 2 scores were -14 ±63% for USMLE and 13 ± 50% for COMLEX in predicting the ABEM ITE scores. USMLE < 37th percentile and COMLEX < 53rd percentile identified 42% (N = 39) and 27% (N = 24) of EM residents, respectively, as at risk, with a sensitivity of 61% and 49% and specificity of 71% and 92%, respectively. USMLE and COMLEX part 2 scores have a very limited role in identifying those at risk of low ITE performance, suggesting that other factors should be considered to identify interns in need of medical knowledge remediation.

A validity study of COMLEX-USA Level 3 with the new test design.

The National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) administers the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA), a three-level examination designed for licensure for the practice of osteopathic medicine. The examination design for COMLEX-USA Level 3 (L3) was changed in September 2018 to a two-day computer-based examination with two components: a multiple-choice question (MCQ) component with single best answer and a clinical decision-making (CDM) case component with extended multiple-choice (EMC) and short answer (SA) questions. Continued validation of the L3 examination, especially with the new design, is essential for the appropriate interpretation and use of the test scores. The purpose of this study is to gather evidence to support the validity of the L3 examination scores under the new design utilizing sources of evidence based on Kane's validity framework. Kane's validity framework contains four components of evidence to support the validity argument: Scoring, Generalization, Extrapolation, and Implication/Decision. In this study, we gathered data from various sources and conducted analyses to provide evidence that the L3 examination is validly measuring what it is supposed to measure. These include reviewing content coverage of the L3 examination, documenting scoring and reporting processes, estimating the reliability and decision accuracy/consistency of the scores, quantifying associations between the scores from the MCQ and CDM components and between scores from different competency domains of the L3 examination, exploring the relationships between L3 scores and scores from a performance-based assessment that measures related constructs, performing subgroup comparisons, and describing and justifying the criterion-referenced standard setting process. The analysis data contains first-attempt testscores for 8,366 candidates who took the L3 examination between September 2018 and December 2019. The performance-based assessment utilized as a criterion measure in this study is COMLEX-USA Level 2 Performance Evaluation (L2-PE). All assessment forms were built through the automated test assembly (ATA) procedure to maximize parallelism in terms of content coverage and statistical properties across the forms. Scoring and reporting follows industry-standard quality-control procedures. The inter-rater reliability of SA rating, decision accuracy, and decision consistency for pass/fail classifications are all very high. There is a statistically significant positive association between the MCQ and the CDM components of the L3 examination. The patterns of associations, both within the L3 subscores and with L2-PE domain scores, fit with what is being measured. The subgroup comparisons by gender, race, and first language showed expected small differences in mean scores between the subgroups within each category and yielded findings that are consistent with those described in the literature. The L3 pass/fail standard was established through implementation of a defensible criterion-referenced procedure. This study provides some additional validity evidence for the L3 examination based on Kane's validity framework. The validity of any measurement must be established through ongoing evaluation of the related evidence. The NBOME will continue to collect evidence to support validity arguments for the COMLEX-USA examination series.

Improving Transparency in the Residency Application Process: Survey Study.

Increasing numbers of residency applications create challenges for applicants and residency programs to assess if they are a good fit during the residency application and match process. Applicants face limited or conflicting information as they assess programs, leading to overapplying. A holistic review of residency applications is considered a gold standard for programs, but the current volumes and associated time constraints leave programs relying on numerical filters, which do not predict success in residency. Applicants could benefit from increased transparency in the residency application process. This study aims to determine the information applicants find most beneficial from residency programs when deciding where to apply, by type of medical school education background. Match 2023 applicants voluntarily completed an anonymous survey through the Twitter and Instagram social media platforms. We asked the respondents to select 3 top factors from a multiple-choice list of what information they would like from residency programs to help determine if the characteristics of their application align with program values. We examined differences in helpful factors selected by medical school backgrounds using ANOVA. There were 4649 survey respondents. When responses were analyzed by United States-allopathic (US-MD), doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), and international medical graduate (IMG) educational backgrounds, respondents chose different factors as most helpful: minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) or Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Step 2 scores (565/3042, 18.57% US-MD; 485/3042, 15.9% DO; and 1992/3042, 65.48% IMG; P<.001), resident hometown region (281/1132, 24.82% US-MD; 189/1132, 16.7% DO; and 662/1132, 58.48% IMG; P=.02), resident medical school region (476/2179, 22% US-MD; 250/2179, 11.5% DO; and 1453/2179, 66.7% IMG; P=.002), and percent of residents or attendings underrepresented in medicine (417/1815, 22.98% US-MD; 158/1815, 8.71% DO; and 1240/1815, 68.32% IMG; P<.001). When applying to residency programs, this study found that the factors that respondents consider most helpful from programs in deciding where to apply differ by educational background. Across all educational groups, respondents want transparency around standardized exam scores, geography, and the racial or ethnic backgrounds of residents and attendings.

An analysis of osteopathic medical students applying to surgical residencies following transition to a single graduate medical education accreditation system.

Upon requests from osteopathic medical schools, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Charting Outcomes were redesigned to include osteopathic medical school seniors beginning in 2018 and one joint graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), formed in 2020. The goal of this study is to analyze the match outcomes and characteristics of osteopathic applicants applying to surgical specialties following the ACGME transition. A retrospective analysis of osteopathic senior match outcomes in surgical specialties from the NRMP Main Residency Match data from 2020 to 2022 and the NRMP Charting Outcomes data from 2020 to 2022 was performed. For surgical specialties, results show matching increased as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 CK (clinical knowledge) and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 CE (cognitive evaluation) scores increased along with the number of contiguous rankings (p<0.001). The greatest indication for matching looking at scores alone were those who scored greater than 230 on Step 2 CK compared to below (p<0.001) and above 650 on Level 2 CE (p<0.001). However, those who scored 240 (p=0.025) on Step 2 CK were just as likely to match as those who scored 250 (p=0.022) when compared to those who scored below those scores. Increasing research involvement had little to no significance with the likelihood of matching across most surgical subspecialties. Our study demonstrates that there are unique thresholds for Step 2 CK scores, Level 2 CE scores, and the number of contiguous ranks for each surgical specialty that, when reached, are significantly associated with match success. Although certain board score delineations are linked with higher match success rates, the rates level off after this point for most surgical specialties and do not significantly increase further with higher scores. In addition, thresholds within contiguous ranks for increasing match likelihood exist and vary across surgical specialties. Overall, this study highlights that the quantitative metrics utilized to assess applicants lack the correlation reported historically, and the data presently available need to be more substantiated.

Minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Scores Often Do Not Align.

Background Many residency programs do not accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) alone for osteopathic applicants. Furthermore, among those programs that do accept the COMLEX-USA, it is unknown how programs scale their minimum COMLEX-USA scores compared to their minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. Objective Our objective was to examine the variation of relative within-program differences between minimum USMLE Step and COMLEX-USA Level scores required for consideration by United States residency programs. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) database from April 2023, including the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022. These specialties were internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, psychiatry, surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and neurology. Within-program differences were calculated by subtracting the minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores from the converted minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores calculated from the minimum COMLEX-USA Level 1 and 2 scores using two conversion tools. We present differences as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Additionally, we report the proportion of programs with greater than 10-point differences for each step (1 and 2). Results Of the 3,364 accredited programs from the examined specialties, we included 1,477 in the Step 1 analysis and 1,227 in the Step 2 analysis with complete data. The median within-program difference between the minimum Step 1 score and the predicted Step 1 score was 12.0 (IQR 2.0, 17.0) using the Barnum and colleagues' conversion tool and -1.7 (IQR -6.2, 6.3) using the Smith and colleagues' tool. The median differences for Step 2 were 2.0 (IQR -8.0, 12.0) and -6.5 (IQR -13.9, -1.5) for each tool, respectively. Using the Barnum and Smith conversion tools, 937 (63%) and 435 (29%) programs had a greater than 10-point Step 1 score difference, respectively. Similarly, for Step 2, 564 (46%) and 515 (42%) programs had a greater than 10-point difference with each conversion tool. Conclusion There is wide variation in the within-program differences between minimum USMLE and predicted minimum USMLE (from COMLEX-USA) scores. Many programs have greater than 10-point differences, which may be a source of bias in osteopathic applicant selection.

Six practical tips to prepare for the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) USA level 1

Sophisticated high-stakes licensure and specialty certification maintenance examinations are educational requirements in osteopathic medicine. Passing the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) USA Level 1 is one of the crucial milestones that osteopathic medical students (DO students) must achieve while starting clinical rotations and before applying to residency programs. While standardized examinations are often used for gatekeeping purposes, the broader goal of COMLEX USA Level 1 is to assess competent osteopathic physicians. This manuscript aims to assist DO students as well as osteopathic medical educators, learning specialists, medical advisors, and administrators in preparing a successful plan for the COMLEX USA Level 1. The tips within this manuscript align with the information taught in osteopathic medical school curricula, including osteopathic principles and practice (OPP), osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and the content outline found within the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME) blueprint. The planning tip system is (1) Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) curriculum focus; (2) OPP/OMT content study; (3) Practice using clinical scenarios; (4) Review the NBOME blueprint; (5) Effective practice using question banks; and (6) Practice using full-length exams. Issues related to allocating DO students' time in preparation for the exam while providing useful resources to learn planning strategies and practice with board-style questions are discussed. Using the DO PREP tip system in this manuscript, DO students can develop more effective board preparation strategies to improve their success on COMLEX USA Level 1. This opinion-based article describes some but not all tips for osteopathic medical students to plan their COMLEX USA Level 1 board preparation.

Assessment Briefs

Assessment Briefs

The Florida Clinical Skills Collaborative: A New Regional Consortium for the Assessment of Clinical Skills.

Discontinuation of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS)exam and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 Performance Evaluation (2-PE) raised questions about the ability of medical schools to ensure the clinical skills competence of graduating students. In February 2021, representatives from all Florida, United States, allopathic and osteopathic schools initiated a collaboration to address this critically important issue in the evolving landscape of medical education.A 5-point Likert scale survey of all members (n=18/20 individuals representing 10/10 institutions) reveals that initial interest in joining the collaboration was high among both individuals (mean 4.78, SD 0.43) and institutions (mean 4.69, SD 0.48).Most individuals (mean 4.78, SD 0.55) and institutions (mean 4.53, SD 0.72) are highly satisfied with their decision to join. Members most commonly cited a "desire to establish a shared assessment in place of Step 2 CS/2-PE" as their most important reason for joining.Experienced benefits of membership were ranked as the following: 1) Networking, 2) Shared resources for curriculum implementation, 3) Scholarship, and 4) Work towards a shared assessment in place of Step 2 CS/2-PE.Challenges of membership were ranked as the following: 1) Logistics such as scheduling and technology, 2) Agreement on common goals, 3) Total time commitment, and 4) Large group size.Members cited the "administration of a joint assessment pilot" as the highest priority for the coming year. Florida has successfully launched a regional consortium for the assessment of clinical skills competency with high levels of member satisfaction which may serve as a model for future regional consortia.

Effects of Organ System Courses of the First Two Years of Medical School on the Performance of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation

Objectives: The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation (CE) is a board examination that medical students usually take in the third or fourth year of medical school. A few researchers have investigated the prediction of COMLEX Level 2-CE scores based on the performance in third-year clerkships. However, given how close the clerkships are to the board exam, this type of prediction is too late for students to have adequate time to get assistance to prepare for COMLEX Level 2-CE. We aimed to investigate the predictive value of each organ system course during the first two years in predicting COMLEX Level 2-CE performance. Our findings will help students at risk focus on important basic and clinical sciences much earlier before preparing for COMLEX Level 2-CE.Methods: Academic data from students enrolled at Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine from 2011 to 2017 were retrieved. Data included the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, course grades in the first two years of medical school, COMLEX Level 1 scores, and COMLEX Level 2-CE scores. Pearson correlation coefficients, a multiple linear regression model, and a backward stepwise regression model were generated for analysis.Results: The highest correlation with COMLEX Level 2-CE scores was the COMLEX Level 1 score, followed by the performances in the third-semester Cardiovascular System II (CV II) and Renal System II (REN II) courses. Multiple linear regression and backward stepwise regression predictive models found that scores on third-semester CV II and Principles of Clinical Medicine III (PCM III) were the most significant predictors of performance on Level 2-CE. Both models explained 46% of the variance in COMLEX Level 2-CE scores.Conclusions: Performances in third-semester courses are the most important predictors of COMLEX Level 2-CE scores.

Differences Between Emergency Medicine Residency Programs That Accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States and Those That Prefer or Only Accept the United States Medical Licensing Examination.

IntroductionThe Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) is a three-part series of examinations similar to the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) that osteopathic medical students must pass for medical licensure. Osteopathic students are not required to take the USMLE, but during the residency admission process, many emergency medicine (EM) residency programs will not consider osteopathic applicants who only take the COMLEX-USA. Therefore, we examined program-level characteristics between programs that accept the COMLEX-USA alone for osteopathic applicants and those that prefer the USMLE using free, publicly available online databases and residency program websites.MethodsEmergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) Match was the primary database used; however, missing exam preferences were supplemented from Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) and individual program websites. Program characteristics were compared between EM residencies that accept the COMLEX-USA and those that prefer the USMLE using the Chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test for interval variables.ResultsTwo hundred sixty of the 278 EM programs in the dataset were included in the analyses. One hundred and seven programs reported preferring the USMLE, while 151 reported accepting the COMLEX-USA alone. Programs differed by the educational environment of the primary training site (p <0.001), number of Standardized Letter(s) of Evaluation (SLOE) needed for an interview (p = 0.042), emergency department (ED) shift length (p = 0.021), former American Osteopathic Association accreditation (p <0.001), percentage of osteopathic residents (p <0.001), annual ED volume (p = 0.001), number of intern positions (p <0.001), and number of elective weeks (p = 0.028).ConclusionEM residency programs that reported accepting the COMLEX-USA alone for osteopathic applicants differed from those that prefer the USMLE. Therefore, osteopathic medical students interested in EM should consider these differences when deciding whether to take the USMLE.

A Concordance Study of COMLEX-USA and USMLE Scores.

Under the single GME accreditation system, residency programs receive applicants from MD- and DO-granting medical schools, each of which have their own set of licensing examinations, making concordance studies increasingly relevant. Previous studies comparing Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores have been limited in sample size and examinee composition and have yielded comparisons that may not be generalizable across all applicants. Some osteopathic medical students take USMLE in addition to COMLEX-USA, often at considerable cost and effort, with the aim of making themselves more desirable to potential residency programs. Having more reliable comparisons of COMLEX-USA and USMLE scores would allow program directors to better estimate a score on the alternate examination. To derive an accurate concordance between COMLEX-USA and USMLE scores, based on a large sample of osteopathic students who took both examinations. Five colleges of osteopathic medicine, representing various regions of the United States, participated in this study. The data included demographics and COMLEX-USA and USMLE scores from September 2015 through August 2020 for students who took both examinations. We derived the concordance between COMLEX-USA and USMLE scores using equipercentile matching. Comparisons of demographic characteristics showed only minor differences between the sample and the overall population for COMLEX-USA takers, although scores for the study sample were, on average, greater. A strong association exists between the scores on the COMLEX-USA and USMLE examinations, allowing prediction of performance on USMLE from COMLEX-USA.

COMLEX-USA and USMLE for Osteopathic Medical Students: Should We Duplicate, Divide, or Unify?

COMLEX-USA and USMLE for Osteopathic Medical Students: Should We Duplicate, Divide, or Unify?

A retrospective and correlative analysis of academic and nonacademic predictors of COMLEX level 1 performance.

National licensing exams (NLEs) including the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 1 evaluate student achievement. Scores have historically been utilized to stratify medical student applicants for residency. Grade point average (GPA), number of practice questions completed, and performance on practice exams have been shown to be predictive of NLE performance. Test anxiety and acute stress have been shown to negatively impact NLE performance. The role of study behaviors and other nonacademic factors in COMLEX Level 1 performance is unknown. This study aims to evaluate academic and nonacademic factors and to correlate them with COMLEX Level 1 performance. Additional analysis is conducted to associate COMLEX Level 1 performance with academic and nonacademic factors when controlling for GPA. An anonymous online survey was administered to third- (OMS III) and fourth-year (OMS IV) osteopathic medical students at Kansas City University that had completed the COMLEX Level 1 examination. In total, 72 students responded to the survey. Survey results were linked to student records of GPA and COMLEX Level 1 scores, resulting in 59 complete responses for analysis. Independent-sample t-tests and linear ordinary least squares regression were utilized to analyze the results. The majority of participants are male (62.7%) and OMS III (98.3%) with an average age of 27.14±2.58 (mean±standard deviation). Further demographic data reveal hours per week spent for personal time during dedicated study (n=46, 19.7±18.53), hours of sleep per night during dedicated study (7.34±0.92), and money spent on board preparation ($1,319.12±$689.17). High ($1,600-$3,000), average ($1,000-$1,500), and low ($100-$900) spenders do not statistically differ and COMLEX Level 1 performance is not related to the number of resources utilized (F statistics <1; p>0.05). Pearson correlations reveal a statistically significant relationship between COMLEX Level 1 scores with GPA (0.73, p<0.001), number of practice exams completed (0.39, p<0.001), number of questions completed (0.46, p<0.001), number of weeks of study (0.55, p<0.001), and preparation cost (0.28, p<0.05). The regression analysis revealed that money spent on board preparation, number of questions completed, and time spent studying accounted for 75.8% of the variance in COMLEX Level 1 scores after controlling for GPA. The data show the association of money spent on board preparation, numbers of questions competed, and time spent studying with a student's COMLEX Level 1 score. Additionally, these results highlight the amount of money students spend on extracurricular materials to prepare for COMLEX Level 1, yet the data show that the number of resources that students utilized is not related to a student's COMLEX Level 1 performance.

Transparency in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Background, Study, and Implications

BackgroundMedical students are applying to dramatically more ophthalmology residency programs than in the past, causing an increased administrative burden for programs and financial harm to students. This study considers the background of this situation and looks at how a lack of transparency surrounding potential residency match filters contributes. Furthermore, this study raises several potential solutions to this lack of transparency that may increase the functionality of the ophthalmology residency match.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the availability and consistency of potential ophthalmology residency match filters through training program websites and the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Residency & Fellowship Database (FREIDA).MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional observational study of ophthalmology residency program websites and AMA's FREIDA database entries. For 119 ophthalmology residency programs, five potential filters were evaluated for both availability and consistency on individual residency websites and FREIDA. These filters were: (1) whether a program required a minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score; (2) minimum number of letters of recommendation required; 3) whether a minimum USMLE Step 2 score was required; (4) if the program accepts the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) sequence in lieu of the USMLE; and (5) ability of the residency to sponsor a visa (J-1, H-1B, or F-1). Each program's website and FREIDA entry were independently evaluated by two authors to increase validity, with a third author brought in to break the tie in case of a disagreement.ResultsOnly two ophthalmology residency programs had information about all five filters both available and consistent on their website and FREIDA. Inter-reviewer reliability was 92.5%.ConclusionsInformation about potential filters used in the ophthalmology residency match is neither publicly available nor consistent. This lack of transparency may contribute to the phenomenon of medical students applying to dramatically more ophthalmology residency programs. A standardized database of these filters is needed to increase transparency to applicants, which may reduce the expenses of medical students and the workload of program directors.

Predicting Osteopathic Medical Student Performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge From Results of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation.

BackgroundTo improve their standing in residency selection, many osteopathic medical students choose to take the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Although scores on USMLE Step 1 and Level 1 of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) are known to be highly correlated, scarce data exist on the association between COMLEX-USA Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation (CE) and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores. In this study, we aimed to determine the association between COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE and USMLE Step 2 CK scores and derive an equation to predict performance on USMLE Step 2 CK for applicants who have only taken COMLEX-USA.MethodologyWe reviewed COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE and USMLE Step 2 CK scores for all students at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine from May 2020 to April 2021. Linear regression was used to evaluate the relationship between COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE and USMLE Step 2 CK scores.ResultsA total of 340 students took both COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE and USMLE Step 2 CK. There was a linear association between COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE and USMLE Step 2 CK scores such that every one-point increase in COMLEX-USA was associated with a 0.13-point increase in USMLE Step 2 CK score (standard error = 9.1; model R2 = 0.64).ConclusionsStudents or programs interested in predicting performance on USMLE Step 2 CK from performance on COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE can do so using the following equation: USMLE Step 2 CK = 0.13(COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE) + 163.5.

333 Emergency Medicine Residencies that Accept the COMLEX Are Different from Those That Do Not: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of EMRA Match

The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) is a 3-part series of examinations, similar to the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), that osteopathic students are required to pass. Osteopathic students are not required to take the USMLE, but many emergency medicine (EM) residency programs will not consider osteopathic applicants who only take the COMLEX. We examined program-level characteristics between programs that accept the COMLEX and those that prefer the USMLE using Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) Match, a free, publicly available, online catalogue of EM programs.

The Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Pandemic on the 2020 to 2021 Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Cycle.

The Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Pandemic on the 2020 to 2021 Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency Cycle.

Effect of a required online graded curriculum in the clerkship years on medical student nationalstandardized examination performance.

Many medical schools have a distributed model for clinical clerkship education, challenging our ability to determine student gaps during clinical education. With the graduating class of 2017, A.T. Still University's School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona (ATSU-SOMA) began requiring additional online curricula for all clerkship courses. To determine whether third year and fourth year students receiving ATSU-SOMA's online curricula during core clerkships performed better overall on national standardized examinations than students from previous years who had not received the curricula, and whether scores from online coursework correlated with outcomes on standardized examinations as possible early predictors of success. This retrospective cohort study analyzed existing data (demographics and assessments) from ATSU-SOMA classes of 2017-2020 (curriculum group) and 2014-2016 (precurriculum group). The effect of the curriculum on national standardized examinations (Comprehensive OsteopathicMedical Achievement Test [COMAT] and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States [COMLEX-USA]) was estimated using augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW). Correlations between assignment scores and national standardized examinations were estimated using linear regression models. The curriculum group had 405 students with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 25.7 (±3.1) years. Two hundred and fifteen (53.1%) students in the curriculum group were female and 190 (46.9%) were male. The precurriculum group had 308 students (mean±SD age, 26.4±4.2 years; 157 [51.0%] male; 151 [49.0%] female). The online curriculum group had higher COMAT clinical subject exam scores in obstetrics and gynecology, osteopathic principles and practice (OPP), psychiatry, and surgery (all p≤0.04), as well as higher COMLEX-USA Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation (CE) family medicine and OPP subscores (both p≤0.03). The curriculum group had a 9.4 point increase in mean total COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE score (p=0.08). No effect was found for the curriculum overall on COMAT mean or COMLEX-USA Level 2-Performance Evaluation scores (all p≥0.11). Total coursework scores in each core clerkship, excluding pediatrics, were correlated with COMAT mean score (all adjusted p≤0.03). Mean scores for five of the seven assignment types in core clerkships, excluding evidence based medicine types, were positively correlated with COMAT mean scores (all adjusted p≤0.049). All assignment types correlated with COMLEX-USA Level 2-CE total score (alladjusted p≤0.04), except interprofessional education (IPE). Results from this study of 713 students from ATSU-SOMA suggested that our online curriculum supplemented clinic based learning during clerkship courses and improved student outcomes on national standardized examinations.

Examining concurrent validity between COMLEX-USA Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation and COMLEX-USA Level 2-Performance Evaluation.

The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States of America (COMLEX-USA) is a three level examination used as a pathway to licensure for students in osteopathic medical education programs. COMLEX-USA Level 2 includes a written assessment of Fundamental Clinical Sciences for Osteopathic Medical Practice (Level 2-Cognitive Evaluation [L2-CE]) delivered in a computer based format and separate performance evaluation (Level 2-Performance Evaluation [L2-PE]) administered through live encounters with standardized patients. L2-PE was designed to augment L2-CE. It is expected that the two examinations measure related yet distinct constructs. To explore the concurrent validity of L2-CE with L2-PE. First attempt test scores were obtained from the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners database for 6,639 candidates who took L2-CE between June 2019 and May 2020 and matched to the students' L2-PE scores. The sample represented all colleges of osteopathic medicine and 97.5% of candidates who took L2-CE during the complete 2019-2020 test cycle. We calculated disattenuated correlations between the total score for L2-CE, the L2-CE scores for the seven competency domains (CD1 through CD7), and the L2-PE scores for the Humanistic Domain (HM) and Biomedical/Biomechanical Domain (BM). All scores were on continuous scales. Pearson correlations ranged from 0.10 to 0.88 and were all statically significant (p<0.01). L2-CE total score was most strongly correlated with CD2 (0.88) and CD3 (0.85). Pearson correlations between the L2-CE competency domain subscores ranged from 0.17 to 0.70, and correlations which included either HM or BM ranged from 0.10 to 0.34 with the strongest of those correlations being between BM and L2-CE total score (0.34) as well as between HM and BM (0.28).The largest increase between corresponding Pearson and disattenuated correlations was for pairs of scores with lower reliabilities such as CD5 and CD6, which had a Pearson correlation of 0.17 and a disattenuated correlation of 0.68. The smallest increase in correlations was observed in pairs of scores with larger reliabilities such as L2-CE total score and HM, which had a Pearson correlation of 0.23 and a disattenuated correlation of 0.28. The reliability of L2-CE was 0.87, 0.81 for HM, and 0.73 for BM. The reliabilities for the L2-CE competency domain scores ranged from 0.22 to 0.74. The small to moderate correlations between the L2-CE total score and the two L2-PE support the expectation that these examinations measure related but distinct constructs. The correlations between L2-PE and L2-CE competency domain subscores reflect the distribution of items defined by the L2-PE blueprint, providing evidence that the examinations are performing as designed. This study provides evidence supporting the validity of the blueprints for constructing COMLEX-USA Levels 2-CE and 2-PE examinations in concert with the purpose and nature of the examinations.