Medical Licensing Examination Step Research Articles

Exploring the usage of learning resources by medical students in the basic science stage and their effect on academic performance

BackgroundThe United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 is one of the two examinations written after completion of the first two years (basic science stage) of medical school to be eligible to apply for residency training in the USA. A huge number and types of study materials are available to prepare for the exam which might confuse students choosing a resource.We investigated learning resources being used by the third and fifth-semester medical students and their association with academic performance. We also compared learning resources and exam scores of high-performing and low-performing students.MethodsData collection was done using structured (quantitative study) and semi-structured (qualitative study) questionnaires during a face-to-face interview. This article is about the quantitative part which was designed as a correlational study. Single factor one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation coefficient test, T-test, and Fisher’s exact test were used to analyze the data.ResultsAbout half of all students used three or more commercial resources dealing with the same content. A weak negative correlation was observed between the number of commercial resources and the exam scores, especially when the number of these resources was three or more (r = -0.26). The mean exam score of textbook users was statistically significantly higher than the mean score of textbook non-users (p = 0.01). The usage of textbooks was statistically significantly higher in the cohort of top performers in comparison to the rest of the students (p = 0.006). In addition to less usage of textbooks, the mean number of review books was higher in the group of weakest students (2.84 versus 3.7; p = 0.75).ConclusionsMost students did not use professional textbooks and about half used too many commercial review resources. While the former fact was significantly associated with poor academic performance, the later fact had weak negative correlation with exam score.Pedagogical interventions are urgently needed to make the right type of learning resources available by making professional textbooks more USMLE-oriented and helping the students choose the best and right number of resources for optimum academic performance. By fulfilling the observed needs of the students in this way, they might feel empowered because of self-determination which will motivate studies.

Academic performance of students in an accelerated medical pathway

ABSTRACT Accelerated medical school curricula, such as three-year programs, have gained attention in recent years but studies evaluating their impact are still scarce. This study examines the Fully Integrated Readiness for Service Training (FIRST) program, a three-year accelerated pathway, to assess its impact on students’ academic performance preparedness for residency. In this observational study, we compared the academic outcomes of FIRST program students to traditional four-year curriculum students from 2018 to 2023. We analyzed multiple metrics, including exam performance (United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores, shelf exam scores, and pre-clinical course scores) and clinical performance scores during the application and individualization phases. Analysis of Variance was used to examine the effect of accelerated pathway program experience relative to traditional 4-year medical school curriculum on the learning outcomes. FIRST program students were on average 1.5 years younger upon graduation than their traditional peers. While FIRST program students scored slightly lower on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK), they exhibited no significant differences in other exam scores or clinical performance relative to the traditional students. Notably, FIRST students achieved equivalent clinical performance ratings during critical clerkships and rotations. Our findings suggest that a three-year medical school curriculum can effectively prepare students for residency and produce graduates with comparable medical knowledge and clinical skills, offering potential benefits in terms of financial relief and personal well-being for medical students.

DO seniors and IMGs have lower match probabilities than MD seniors after adjusting for specialty choice and USMLE Step 1 score.

It is unknown if US residency applicants of different educational backgrounds (US allopathic [MD], Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO], and international medical graduates [IMG]) but comparable academic performance have similar match success. Our objective was to compare match probabilities between applicant types after adjusting for specialty choice and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. We performed a secondary analysis of published data in National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reports from 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 for US MD seniors, DO seniors, and IMGs (US citizens and non-US citizens). We examined the 10 specialties with the most available spots in 2022. Average marginal effects from a multiple variable logistic regression model were utilized to estimate each non-MD senior applicant type's probability of matching into their preferred specialty compared to MD seniors adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year. Each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching to their preferred specialty than MD seniors,-7.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI],-11.3 to-2.9) for DO seniors,-45.6 % (-50.6 to-40.5) for US IMGs, and-56.6 % (-61.5 to-51.6) for non-US IMGs. Similarly, each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching than MD seniors across almost all Step 1 score ranges, except for DO seniors with Step 1 scores <200 (-2.0 % [-9.5 to 5.5]). After adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year, non-US MD applicants had lower probabilities of matching into their preferred specialties than their US MD colleagues.

Medical students' perspective on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 transition to Pass/Fail

Background The transition of the United States Medical Licensing Exam: Step 1 to Pass/Fail (P/F), from scored, caused uncertainty about students’ preparedness and wellbeing related to the exam. Comparison of study behavior and results, before and after the P/F transition can provide insights for the medical curriculum and student support. Methods Data from four cohorts of second-year medical students (Class of 2022–25, N = 204) were collected from their dedicated Step 1 self-study block. Student study regiments, aggregate practice test results, Step 1 pass rates and post-block self-reported surveys were analyzed. Results Analysis of practice exam averages across the four student cohorts demonstrates a potentially slower and less rigorous start to Step 1 self-studying during the dedicated preparation block for the cohorts that took the P/F Step 1 exam format as compared to the previous cohorts that prepared for a scored Step 1 exam. Similarly, self-reported study regiments decreased in the median number of hours/day and number of weeks of study for the cohorts with P/F Step 1 exam. There was also a slight shift in the type of study resources used, between the two groups, with the scored group using more traditional board preparation resources. Conclusions The P/F transition of the Step 1 exam may lead to reduced student preparedness and may require adjustments in the resources and support provided by institutions.

Matching Against Men: 5 Years of Residency Match Data Show Disparities Still Exist.

Despite progress toward equal representation by sex in medical practice, women remain underrepresented in many specialties. This study sought to examine the current state of gender equality among recently graduated doctors in multiple specialties. Deidentified demographics, standardized examination scores, and Match results were gathered for 829 graduates. Participants were selected from an allopathic medical school between 2016 and 2020. Nineteen students (2.29%) were excluded from the study. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and χ2 tests for independence were used to compare proportions between reported sex and specialty and program Match results. One-way analysis of variance was then performed to test for differences in US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 scores between sexes. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of the 829 individuals studied, 44.6% were women. A significantly smaller proportion of women matched into the most competitive specialties, despite no significant difference in US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores between sexes. Furthermore, there was an overall significant trend of women matching into more competitive programs for any given specialty. In this study, we found that men matched into more highly competitive specialties, whereas women matched into more competitive residency program locations. Further research is needed to determine why women matched into specific specialties at lower rates than their male peers and seek to understand how sex affects the narrative of specialty choice.

The Impact of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Transitioning To Pass/Fail on Medical Student Perception of Research Needed to Match Into One's Preferred Specialty.

Purpose To evaluate how the transition of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to a pass/fail scoring influenced medical student perceptions of the importance of research required to match into their preferred residency specialty. Methods A 14-item survey was distributed by e-mail to medical students at one medical school in the southeastern United States in November of 2021. Responses were compared between medical students taking USMLE Step 1 pass/fail in the future and medical students taking USMLE Step 1 for a three-digit score. Results A total of 168 medical students responded to the survey with 98 respondents who planned on taking USMLE Step 1 pass/fail (45 first-year medical students (MS1) and 53 MS2) and 70 respondents who took USMLE Step 1 for a numerical score (37 MS3and 33 MS4). There were no differences in how each cohort scored the level of importance of research in matching into their preferred residency specialty (p=0.10); however, those taking USMLE Step 1 pass/fail believe an average of 4.6 research experiences are necessary to match into their preferred residency, compared to only 3.4 research experiences for those who took it for a numerical score (p=0.04). Conclusion No statistically significant difference in the perceived importance of research in matching into one's preferred residency specialty was found between cohorts. However, the pass/fail cohort believes they will need more research experiences to match their chosen specialty than the numerical score cohort. Results could indicate that students participate in more research and extracurricular activities to be more competitive for residency applications.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Situational Judgment Testing Among Applicants to an Anesthesiology Residency Program

Background The Computer-Based Assessment for Sampling Personal Characteristics (CASPer) is a situational judgment test (SJT) that assesses noncognitive skills like professionalism, communication, and empathy. There are no reports of the effects of race/ethnicity and sex on CASPer scores among residency applicants. Objective We examined the effects of race/ethnicity, sex, and United States vs international medical school attendance on CASPer performance. Methods Our anesthesiology residency program required all applicants for the 2021-2022 Match cycle to complete an online video and text-based SJT (CASPer). We compared these results, reported as z-scores, with self-identified race/ethnicity, sex, United States vs international medical school attendance, and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. Results Of the 1245 applicants who completed CASPer, 783 identified as male. The racial/ethnic distribution was 512 White, 412 Asian, 106 Black, 126 Hispanic, and 89 Other/No Answer. CASPer z-scores did not differ by sex. White candidates scored higher than Black (0.18 vs -0.57, P&amp;lt;.001) and Hispanic (0.18 vs -0.52, P&amp;lt;.001) candidates. Applicants attending US medical schools scored higher than those attending international medical schools (z-scores: 0.15 vs -0.68, P&amp;lt;.001). There was no correlation between CASPer z-scores and USMLE Step 1 scores. Conclusions Our results suggest that CASPer scores favor White applicants over Black and Hispanic ones and applicants attending US medical schools over those attending international medical schools.

Program Directors' Perspectives on Residency Applications in the Post‒United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Era: A Case for Standardized Letters of Recommendation?

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 test evolved into a key metric utilized by program directors (PDs) in assessing candidates for residency. The transition to a USMLE Step 1 binary pass/fail scoring system has resulted in a loss of an important objective assessment. With national movements toward pass/fail systems for clerkship grading and trends toward abandonment of class ranking, assessing residency applications has become increasingly challenging. The Society of Academic Urologists convened a task force to, in part, assess the perspectives of urology PDs regarding the importance of various aspects of a residency application for predicting clinical performance. An anonymous survey was disseminated to all urology PDs in the US. Perspectives on 11 potential application predictors of clinical performance and demographics were recorded. Descriptive statistics characterized PD responses. Friedman test and pairwise Wilcoxon tests were used to evaluate the relative ranks assigned to application elements by PDs. There was a 60.5% response rate (89/147). Letters of recommendation (LORs) were ranked as the most important predictor, with a mean rank of 2.39, median of 2 (IQR 1-3). Clerkship grades and USMLE Step 1 were comparable and ranked second. Medical school reputation ranked the lowest. There was significant subjective heterogeneity among categories; however, this was less so for LORs, which predominated as the most important factor among application elements (P < .001). To our knowledge, this is the largest sample size assessing PD perspectives on application factors that predict clinical performance. The second (clerkship grades) and third (USLME Step 1) most important factors moving toward binary pass/fail systems create an opportunity for actionable change to improve assessment objectivity. Our data demonstrate LORs to be the most important factor of residency applications, making a compelling argument for moving toward a standardized LOR to maximize this tool, mitigate bias, and improve interreviewer reliability.

Evaluating Urology Program Directors' Perception on Resident Application Parameters Following the Transition of USMLE Step 1 to Pass/Fail

ObjectiveTo investigate how the shift of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to a Pass/Fail (P/F) scoring system impacts the perceptions of Urology Program Directors (PDs) on evaluating urology residency applicants. Methods and MaterialsA cross-sectional survey was sent to 117 PDs, including questions about program characteristics, perceptions of shelf scores and medical school rank post-transition, beliefs about the predictive value of Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores for board success and residency performance, and changes in applicant parameter ranking. Results45 PDs (38% response rate) participated. Notably, 49% favored releasing quantitative clerkship grades, and 71% valued medical school rank more. Opinions on Step 1 scores' correlation with board success were split (49% agreed), and 44% endorsed Step 2 CK scores' connection to board performance. As predictors of good residents, only 9% and 22% considered Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, respectively, indicative. Clerkship grades and Urology rotation recommendation letters-maintained significance, while research experience gained importance. Step 2 CK scores' importance rose but didn’t match Step 1 scores' previous significance. ConclusionThe transition to Pass/Fail (P/F) for USMLE Step 1 adds intricacies to urology residency selection, exposing Program Directors' uncertainties regarding clerkship grades and the relevance of medical school rank. This research underscores the dynamic nature of urology residency admissions, emphasizing the increasing importance of research in evaluating applicants and a diminishing emphasis on volunteering and leadership.

Update on the Selection Criteria of Plastic Surgery Residents: A Survey of Program Directors and Associate Program Directors.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is recognized as a highly competitive specialty. Since the first assessment of resident selection criteria in 2007, PRS residency programs have adopted holistic review processes and adapted to changes such as a decline in medical schools participating in the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society as well as the recent transition to pass/fail grading for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 examination (Schultz et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open . 2020;8:e2892; Tadisina et al. Plast Reconstr Surg . 2017;139:330e-331e). This study was devised to evaluate current PRS residency criteria in light of these changes. An anonymous, 12-item, electronic survey was generated and distributed using Alchemer. An email was sent to 171 program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) of PRS residency programs. Survey questions were developed to collect data regarding respondent demographics and their desired criteria when assessing residency applicants. Complete responses were collected and analyzed with summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression using RStudio (version 1.3.109). In total, 44 (25.7% response rate) of the 171 PDs and APDs completed the survey. Of the 16 programs (36.4%) with a USMLE cutoff score, 7 (43.8%) reported a range of 230 to 239 and 6 (37.5%) reported a range of 240 to 249. Without a score for step 1, the majority (48.8%) of respondents believe that step 2 scores will replace step 1 scores in terms of assessment criteria, and the content of recommendation letters was selected as the criterion with the greatest increase in weight (66.7%). In addition, 27.3% of programs require a step 2 score at the time of interview. The top 3 academic criteria in order of decreasing importance were the content of recommendation letters, clinical grades, and letter writers, whereas the top 3 nonacademic criteria were subinternship performance, maturity, and interview performance. Plastic and reconstructive surgery remains a highly competitive specialty for residency applicants. Our findings suggest that Alpha Omega Alpha membership remains diminished in importance, whereas USMLE cutoff scores have increased. With recent changes in the step 1 grading system, PDs and APDs will rely more heavily on step 2 scores and the content of recommendation letters.

Flipping Tradition on Its Head: A Single-Institution Study on United States Medical Licensing Examination Step Order.

Given the recent change in Step 1 grading, medical students are faced with decisions surrounding the optimal Step examination order and timing. There is a current lack of guidance outside commonly used United States Medical Licensing Examination study blogs. The aim of this study was to characterize current practices in Step examination order and understand the factors influencing student examination preference. To gather data, we used a 24-item survey and electronically distributed it through three separate email requests to medical students. Participants included medical students (MS1-4) attending a single institution, interested in a surgical residency. In total, 56 students responded to the survey (response rate of 20%). Most students (63.6%) opted to take Step 2 before Step 1. Justifications included the perceived importance of Step 2 for residency applications (33.3%), the change to pass/fail grading (27.0%), the relevance of Step 2 after rotations (27.0%), and a desire to obtain a Step 2 score earlier (7.9%). Step examination order did not lead to differences in Step 2 score (P = 0.459), time used to prepare for Step 1 (P = 0.396), or time used to prepare for Step 2 (P = 0.078). Due to the perceived importance of Step 2, most medical students at our institution who are interested in pursuing a surgical residency are reversing the traditional Step examination order. As this may represent a national trend, additional work needs to be done to provide guidance to medical students and identify the optimal step examination testing strategy.

Are Medical School Curricula Adapting With Their Students? A Survey on How Medical Students Study and How it Relates to USMLE Step 1 Scores.

Over the years, medical schools have evolved their curricula in response to the medical field, faculty, and students. The current study aims to examine how medical students study, what resources they most commonly use, and how it relates to United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. A cross-sectional survey study of United States medical students was distributed via social media, GroupMe school chats, and school listservs from September 8, 2020, to December 12, 2020. The survey gathered data including, demographic and school information, resources students, time spent using each resource, and USMLE Step 1 scores. The survey was completed by 560 students from 102 different United States medical schools. Study guides as online resources (83.2%) were mostly used, lecture (82.5%), Anki (spaced repetition flashcards, 68.3%), and school-organized sessions (workshops, labs, and small groups) (60.7%). Of the students surveyed, 90% attended schools with a recorded lecture option. Only 54% of these students watched their lectures live. When watched online, the average watching speed was 1.75 ± 0.4× with a mode of 2× speed. In examining different medical school styles, schools with a 1.5-year preclinical curriculum had higher USMLE Step 1 scores (244.5 ± 15.6 vs 236.9 ± 16.2, P-score = .024) compared to schools that did not (1- or 2-year preclinical curriculum). Medical students seem to be using third-party resources in addition to their medical school curriculums. Because students are already broadly using these, medical schools could allow their curriculums to reference, require, or complement third-party online resources. Additionally, because of their increased cost, medical schools could consider ways to alleviate the cost on medical students as a means of equitable support. Lastly, Step 1 scores significantly correlated with schools with a 1.5-year preclinical curriculum, although the exact reasoning for this remains uncertain.

The Impact of Signaling on the 2022 to 2023 Orthopaedic Residency Application Cycle: A Survey of Incoming Residents

Background: During the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency application cycle, “signaling” was added, allowing applicants to communicate strong interest to 30 programs of their choosing. This study's purpose was to evaluate signaling's impact on the 2022 to 2023 application cycle. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to applicants who applied to a single residency program. We evaluated how many interviews the average applicant received, what proportion of interviews came from programs they had signaled, and what percentage of applicants matched at a program they had signaled. We stratified data by American Orthopaedic Association status, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores, research items, sex, and race. Results: This survey was distributed to 611 applicants, with 124 (20.3%) responding to the survey. Ninety-five respondents (76.6%) matched. The percentage of applicant interviews that came from signaled programs was 78.7%. Ninety-one percent of matched applicants matched at a program they signaled. Sixty-three percent of matched applicants performed an away rotation at their matched programs. Forty-five percent of applicants felt that signaling incentivized reducing the programs they applied to, and applicants gave signaling a high favorability rating of 4/5. Applicants with Alpha Omega Alpha status received more interviews per application (0.18 ± 0.11 vs. 0.10 ± 0.10, p &lt; 0.001) and more interviews from programs they did not signal (74% of interviews from signaled programs vs. 90% of interviews from signaled programs, p &lt; 0.001). Higher Step 1 and Step 2 scores were associated with more interviews per application (Step 1: 0.16 ± 0.12 vs. 0.12 ± 0.08, p = 0.032) (Step 2: 0.16 ± 0.11 vs. 0.12 ± 0.09, p = 0.032). Conclusion: Orthopaedic residency applicants received most of their interviews from programs that they signaled, with an overwhelming majority matching at signaled program. Alpha Omega Alpha status and high USMLE scores were associated with more interviews granted per application, regardless of signaling status. Signaling seems to be a favorable option for orthopaedic applicants. Data from future application cycles will help further evaluate signaling's impact on the orthopaedic match.

Pediatric residency milestone performance is not predicted by the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge

Objectives: This study aims to show whether correlation exists between pediatric residency applicants’ quantitative scores on the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 2 Clinical Knowledge examination and their subsequent performance in residency training based on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones, which are competency-based assessments that aim to determine residents’ ability to work unsupervised after postgraduate training. No previous literature has correlated Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores with pediatric residency performance assessed by Milestones. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 2 Clinical Knowledge Scores and Milestones data were collected from all 188 residents enrolled in a single categorical pediatric residency program from 2012 - 2017. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated amongst available test and milestone data points to determine correlation between test scores and clinical performance. Results: Using Pearson correlation coefficients, no significant correlation was found between quantitative scores on the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam and average Milestones ratings (r = -0.1 for post-graduate year 1 residents and r = 0.25 for post-graduate year 3 residents). Conclusions: These results demonstrate that Step 2 scores have no correlation to success in residency training as measured by progression along competency-based Milestones. This information should limit the importance residency programs place on quantitative Step 2 scores in their ranking of residency applicants. Future studies should include multiple residency programs across multiple specialties to help make these findings more generalizable.

Impact of Preference Signals on Interview Selection Across Multiple Residency Specialties and Programs.

Background Program signaling is an innovation that allows applicants to express interest in specific programs while providing programs the opportunity to review genuinely interested applicants during the interview selection process. Objective To examine the influence of program signaling on "selected to interview" status across specialties in the 2022 Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application cycle. Methods Dermatology, general surgery-categorical (GS), and internal medicine-categorical (IM-C) programs that participated in the signaling section of the 2022 supplemental ERAS application (SuppApp) were included. Applicant signal data was collected from SuppApp, applicant self-reported characteristics collected from the MyERAS Application for Residency Applicants, and 2020 program characteristics collected from the 2020 GME Track Survey. Applicant probability of being selected for interview was analyzed using logistic regression, determined by the selected to interview status in the ERAS Program Director's WorkStation. Results Dermatology had a 62% participation rate (73 of 117 programs), GS a 75% participation rate (174 of 232 programs), and IM-C an 86% participation rate (309 of 361 programs). In all 3 specialties examined, on average, signaling increased the likelihood of being selected to interview compared to applicants who did not signal. This finding held across gender and underrepresented in medicine (UIM) groups in all 3 specialties, across applicant types (MDs, DOs, international medical graduates) for GS and IM-C, and after controlling for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores. Conclusions Although there was variability by program, signaling increased likelihood of being selected for interview without negatively affecting any specific gender or UIM group.

Predictors of Ophthalmology Resident Performance From Medical Student Application Materials

To determine whether elements in ophthalmology residency applications are predictors of future resident performance. This multi-institutional, cross-sectional, observational study retrospectively reviewed the residency application materials of ophthalmology residents who graduated from residency from 2006 through 2018. Resident performance was scored by 2 faculty reviewers in 4 domains (clinical, surgical, academic, and global performance). Correlation between specific elements of the residency application and resident performance was assessed by Spearman correlation coefficients (univariate) and linear regression (multivariate) for continuous variables and logistic regression (multivariate) for categorical variables. Seven ophthalmology residency programs in the US. Ophthalmology residents who graduated from their residency program. High-performing residents were a diverse group, in terms of sex, ethnicity, visa status, and educational background. Residents with United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores higher than the national average for that year had significantly higher scores in all 4 performance domains than those who scored at or below the mean (all domains P < 0.05). Residents who had honors in at least 4 core clerkships and who were members of Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society also had higher scores in all 4 performance domains (all domains P ≤ 0.04). Step 1 score (ρ=0.26, P < 0.001) and the difference between Step 1 score and the national average for that year (ρ=0.19, P = 0.009) positively correlated with total resident performance scores. Residents who passed the American Board of Ophthalmology Written Qualifying Examination or Oral Examination on their first attempt had significantly higher Step 1/2 scores (P ≤ 0.005), Ophthalmology Knowledge Assessment Program scores (P = 0.001), and resident performance scores (P ≤ 0.004). In this new landscape of increasing numbers of applicants to residency programs and changing of the Step 1 score to pass/fail, our findings may help guide selection committees as they holistically review applicants to select exceptional future residents in ophthalmology.

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.

Trends in successfully matched neurosurgery residency applicants.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 recently transitioned to a pass/fail outcome, renewing interest in how programs select neurosurgical residents. This study investigates the association between match status and key academic metrics over time. Data are from the National Resident Matching Program from 2009 to 2022 for matched and unmatched US allopathic (MD) seniors. Investigated metrics included the mean number of contiguous ranks; mean number of distinct specialties ranked; mean USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores; mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications; mean number of research, work, and volunteer experiences; Alpha Omega Alpha status; attendance at a top 40 NIH-funded institution; PhD degree; and other degree. Multiple linear regression without an interaction term was used to evaluate how these have varied between the two groups during the study period and whether there is a difference between unmatched and matched MD seniors applying for a neurosurgical residency. Multiple linear regression with an interaction term was then used to test whether the difference in variables between the two groups changed over time. Regardless of match status, MD senior neurosurgical residency applicants exhibited an increase in USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores; average research experiences; abstracts, presentations, and publications; and work and volunteer experiences (p < 0.001). The percentage of applicants from a top 40 NIH-funded school decreased (p = 0.018), and the percentage who held an additional degree increased (p = 0.007). Between groups, there were significant differences in all categories except work experiences and other degree obtained. Over time, the difference between USMLE Step 2 scores between matched and unmatched seniors diminished (p = 0.027); in contrast, the difference in abstracts, presentations, and publications between the two groups increased over time (p < 0.001). From 2009 to 2022, neurosurgical residency applicants grew in their achievements across many metrics. In the advent of Step 1 becoming pass/fail, this study suggests that Step 2 is not viewed by programs as an adequate replacement. However, the Step 1 grading transition may serve as an opportunity for other factors to be considered that may better predict success in neurosurgical residency.

Reducing implicit bias in the neurosurgery application and interview process: a single-institution experience

OBJECTIVE The neurosurgical match is a challenging process for applicants and programs alike. Programs must narrow a wide field of applicants to interview and then determine how to rank them after limited interaction. To streamline this, programs commonly screen applicants using United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores. However, this approach removes nuance from a consequential decision and exacerbates existing biases. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of effecting minor modifications to the residency application process, as the authors have done at their institution, specifically by reducing the prominence of USMLE board scores and Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) status, both of which have been identified as bearing racial biases. METHODS At the authors’ institution, residents and attendings holistically reviewed applications with intentional redundancy so that every file was reviewed by two individuals. Reviewers were blinded to applicants’ photographs and test scores. On interview day, the applicant was evaluated for their strength in three domains: knowledge, commitment to neurosurgery, and integrity. For rank discussions, applicants were reviewed in the order of their domain scores, and USMLE scores were unblinded. A regression analysis of the authors’ rank list was made by regressing the rank list by AΩA status, Step 1 score, Step 2 score, subinternship, and total interview score. RESULTS No variables had a significant effect on the rank list except total interview score, for which a single-point increase corresponded to a 15-position increase in rank list when holding all other variables constant (p &lt; 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The goal of this holistic review and domain-based interview process is to mitigate bias by shifting the focus to selected core qualities in lieu of traditional metrics. Since implementation, the authors’ final rank lists have closely reflected the total interview score but were not significantly affected by board scores or AΩA status. This system allows for the removal of known sources of bias early in the process, with the aim of reducing potential downstream effects and ultimately promoting a final list that is more reflective of stated values.

Applicants Performance in Interview for a General Surgery Residency Pre- and During Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic

IntroductionThe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a shift from traditional in-person interviews for a residency position to a virtual platform over the last 2 y (2020-2021). With this significant shift, there is controversy about how this may affect applicant performance. We hypothesized that applicants scored higher during virtual interviews than in-person interviews. MethodsApplicants interviewed for postgraduate year 1 positions at a single university-based residency program over six interview cycles were divided into group A (4 cycles, pre-COVID-19) and group B (2 cycles, during COVID-19). All candidates were interviewed by faculty and senior surgical residents and scored on letters of recommendation (LOR), personal statement (PS), research (RS), the way the candidate represented themselves (RP), interest in the geographic area (IN), and degree of connection between candidate and interviewer (CN). Differences in mean scores between candidates in these two groups were assessed using an independent-sample t-test. ResultsOf 332 total applicants, 187 (56.3%) were in group A (cycles 2016-2019) and 145 (43.7%) were in group B (cycles 2020-2022). Group-B had higher United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 and Step 1 mean (standard deviation) scores (251.1 ± 10.6 versus 247.6 ± 11.8, P = 0.006 and 241.1 ± 10.3 versus 238.4 ± 10.4, P = 0.02). Group A scored higher median [interquartile range] in CN (4.4 [4.1, 4.6] versus 4.2 [3.9, 4.6], P = 0.005) and IN (4.3 [4.0, 4.5] versus 4.1 [3.8, 4.4], P = 0.002), while group B scored higher in LOR (4.3 [4.1, 4.6] versus 4.2 [3.9, 4.5], P = 0.011) and PS (4.3 [4.1, 4.4] versus 4.1 [3.8, 4.4], P = 0.001). No differences were noted between groups A and B in RS (3.9 [3.4, 4.5] versus 4.1 [3.5, 4.5], P = 0.108) or RP (4.4 [4.1, 4.7] versus 4.4 [4.2, 4.8], P = 0.317). No differences in the median [interquartile range] total scores of personal characteristic categories (25.1 [23.7, 26.5] versus 25.1 [23.8, 26.7], P = 0.703) were observed. ConclusionsFrom a program perspective, there were no differences between groups; however, candidates in the pre-COVID era scored higher in CN and IN, while those who interviewed virtually had higher scores in LOR and PS. Applicants perceptions may differ regarding in-person versus virtual interviews.