Medical School Performance Research Articles

Admission Grades as Predictors of Medical Students' Academic Performance: A Cross-Sectional Study from Saudi Arabia.

Background: Admission to medical school is competitive, and different countries use various tests in addition to high school grades to minimize selection bias. A few studies have been conducted to evaluate the usefulness of these tests as predictors for students' academic performance. In this article, we aimed to assess factors that influenced students' grades in medical school. Methods: A cross-sectional study included all students who graduated from the Faculty of Medicine at Jazan University between 2018 and 2020. Scores of the included participants were extracted from the registry of Jazan University, and additional questions about study habits were completed by the included students. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were performed for the factors that impacted academic performance. Results: There were 331 included candidates, and the majority of them were female (53%). About 60% of the participants were medical residents at the time of the study, and 40% were interns. Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that grades in high school and the pre-requisite tests were positively associated with students' academic performance. Further, studying more than two hours per day was positively correlated with better grades in medical school. Conclusion: Scores of the admission tests can serve as predictors for student performance in medical school. National studies are deemed essential to evaluate additional admission tests for medical school, an action that would minimize selection bias.

Prior degree and academic performance in medical school: evidence for prioritising health students and moving away from a bio-medical science-focused entry stream

BackgroundGiven the importance of the selection process, many medical schools are reviewing their selection criteria. The traditional pathway for post-graduate medicine has been from science-based undergraduate degrees, however some programs are expanding their criteria. In this study we investigated academic success across all years and themes of the Deakin University medical degree, based on the type of degree undertaken prior to admission. We evaluated whether the traditional pathway of biomedical science into medicine should remain the undergraduate degree of choice, or whether other disciplines should be encouraged.MethodsData from 1159 students entering the degree from 2008 to 2016 was collected including undergraduate degree, grade point average (GPA), Graduate Medical Schools Admission Test (GAMSAT) score and academic outcomes during the 4 years of the degree. Z-scores were calculated for each assessment within each cohort and analysed using a one sample t-test to determine if they differed from the cohort average. Z-scores between groups were analysed by 1-way ANOVA with LSD post-hoc analysis correcting for multiple comparisons.ResultsThe majority of students had Science (34.3%) or Biomedical Science (31.0%) backgrounds. 27.9% of students had a Health-related undergraduate degree with smaller numbers of students from Business (3.5%) and Humanities (3.4%) backgrounds. At entry, GPA and GAMSAT scores varied significantly with Biomedical Science and Science students having significantly higher scores than Health students. Health students consistently outperformed students from other disciplines in all themes while Biomedical Science students underperformed.ConclusionsOur data suggest that a Health-related undergraduate degree results in the best performance throughout medical school, whereas a Biomedical Science background is associated with lower performance. These findings challenge the traditional Biomedical Science pathway into medicine and suggest that a health background might be more favourable when determining the selection criteria for graduate entry into medicine.

Preparing Effective Narrative Evaluations for the Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE).

IntroductionIn 2016, the AAMC Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE) Task Force issued recommendations to standardize the MSPE but did not address the quality of the written narratives in that document. Narrative evaluations are hampered by code words, polite rhetoric, and bias to the detriment of students. To address this, the AAMC's Group on Student Affairs and Group on Educational Affairs convened an expert group to consider the state of narratives in the MSPE and develop resources to improve their quality.MethodsA series of interactive workshops was developed and presented at an AAMC webinar and national meetings. A presentation outlining challenges and possible approaches to improvement was followed with large-group discussion and/or small-group breakout activity to analyze and improve upon sample clinical comments and create summary clerkship paragraphs. The initial webinar used polling questions and free-text prompts to gather feedback for future workshops. Anonymous survey responses were collected at the end of each subsequent workshop to determine perceived effectiveness and potential utility at participants’ institutions.ResultsOver 680 administrators, faculty, and staff participated in the webinar or in one of four national-level workshops. Respondents agreed that the modules would be useful in faculty development and wanted to replicate their learning at their own institutions for overall better impact on the quality of MSPE narratives.DiscussionThis resource addresses an important gap in the medical education literature. A variety of stakeholders affirmed that these workshops have value in training writers to improve their narrative comments for the MSPE.

Medical students' rural practice intention: Academic performance matters.

Many countries are driving forward policies and practices to train medical students for later rural practice. Previous research has investigated individual (e.g., rural upbringing) and structural factors (e.g., curricular exposure) associated with rural practice intention. However, the relationship between academic performance in medical school and rural practice intention has been neglected, although optimisation theory suggests there may be a relationship. To address this gap, our aim was to identify the relationship between academic performance and rural practice intention. Data were collected via a cross-sectional (self-report) survey in 2021. Participants were students from 60 of the 96 rural order directed (RODs) medical programmes across China. We asked students their rural practice intention. We conducted univariate analyses to test for associations between rural practice intention and independent variables, including socio-demographics, ROD location, grade year and academic performance measures. We used multilevel logistic regression models to test whether students' academic performance in medical school could be used to predict rural practice intention, holding the other factors constant. There were 13 123 respondents, representing roughly 77.6% of the student population from the 60 schools. There was a statistically significant relationship between student (self)-reported academic performance in medical school and rural practice intention. Higher performers had a lower likelihood (ORs: 0.65-0.78) of rural practice intention. This held across all performance measures (GPA rank, academic awards and student leadership) and for the sub-group with rural upbringing (ORs: 0.68-0.78). This is the first study to identify a relationship between medical school performance and rural practice intention. The findings suggest that students maximise their utility when choosing career options, with higher performers having lower rural practice intention. These data provide insight into the complexity of medical career decision making and can be used by medical school and workforce planners to inform rural training, recruitment and retention strategies.

Gender differences in repeat-year experience, clinical clerkship performance, and related examinations in Japanese medical students.

While the number of female medical students is increasing in Japan, gender differences in medical school performance have not been studied extensively. This study aimed to compare gender differences in repeat-year experience, Clinical Clerkship (CC) performance, and related examinations in Japanese medical students. We retrospectively analyzed the number of repeat-year students and years to graduation for male and female medical students, and assessed gender differences in performance on computer-based testing (CBT) before CC, CC as evaluated by clinical teachers, the CC integrative test, and the graduation examination in 2018-2020 graduates from our medical school. Subgroup analyses excluding repeat-year students were also performed. From 2018 to 2020, 328 medical students graduated from our medical school. There were significantly fewer repeat-year female students compared to male students (P = .010), and the average number of years to graduate was significantly higher for male students than female students (P < .001). Female students showed higher scores and performance in all integrative tests and CC (P < .05, each). In analysis excluding repeat-year students, there were no significant gender difference in performance on the CBT, and CC integrative test, although female students significantly outperformed male students on the CC and graduation examination. Female medical students had a fewer number of repeat-years and performed better in the CC and graduation examination compared to their male counterparts.

7 Differential Attainment at the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) Examination

Abstract Aim The recent Kennedy review on diversity and inclusivity highlighted concerns that some groups of individuals are facing barriers to progression in surgical careers. Differential attainment in performance at MRCS has been identified but not investigated. This study aimed to explore the relationship between socio-demographic differences and MRCS success. Method UK graduates attempting MRCS Part A (n=5,780) and Part B (n=2,600) from 2013-2019 were identified using the UKMED database. Univariate associations with MRCS performance were identified using chi-squared tests. Multiple logistic regression identified independent predictors of MRCS success at first attempt, adjusted for medical school performance. Results Differences in MRCS pass rates were statistically significant according to graduate status, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and educational background (all P&amp;lt;0.05). After adjusting for prior academic attainment, men (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95%CI 1.87–2.92) and non-graduates (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.44–2.74) were significantly more likely to pass MRCS Part A. Non-graduates (OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.15–2.71) and those who attended a fee-paying school (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.08–2.10) were significantly more likely to pass MRCS Part B. Black and minority ethnic groups were significantly less likely to pass MRCS Part B at their first attempt (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.92 for Black candidates and OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.69 for Asian candidates) compared to White candidates. Conclusions We found significant differential attainment at MRCS that cannot be attributed to learner deficit. Training institutions and Royal Colleges now have a responsibility to identify and address the causes of these attainment differences to facilitate equitable career progression for surgical trainees.

O009 Differential attainment at the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) examination according to gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic factors

Abstract Introduction The lack of diversity at senior and leadership positions in surgery highlights concerns that some groups of individuals face barriers to progression in surgical training. This study aimed to investigate whether there is group-level differential attainment (DA) at MRCS, a mandatory postgraduate examination for UK surgical trainees. Methods All UK graduates attempting MRCS Part A (n=5,780) and Part B (n=2,600) between 2013–2019 were identified using the UK Medical Education Database. Univariate associations with MRCS performance were identified using chi-squared tests. Multiple logistic regression identified independent predictors of first-attempt MRCS success, adjusted for medical school performance. Results We found statistically significant differences in MRCS pass rates according to gender, ethnicity, graduate status, childhood socioeconomic status and educational background (all P&amp;lt;0.05). After adjusting for prior academic attainment, being a non-graduate (odds ratio [OR] 1.98, 95%CI 1.44–2.74) or male (OR 2.34, 95%CI 1.87–2.92) were independent predictors of MRCS Part A success. Being a non-graduate (OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.15–2.71) or having attended a fee-paying school (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.08–2.10) were independent predictors of MRCS Part B success. Black candidates were significantly less likely to pass MRCS Part B at their first attempt (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.18–0.92) as were Asian candidates (OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.35–0.69 for) in comparison to White candidates. Conclusion We found significant DA at MRCS that cannot be attributed to learner deficit. Royal Colleges and training institutions now need to identify and address the causes of these attainment differences to facilitate equitable career progression for surgical trainees. Take-home message We found significant DA at MRCS that cannot be attributed to learner deficit. Royal Colleges and training institutions now need to identify and address the causes of these attainment differences to facilitate equitable career progression for surgical trainees.

BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study

BackgroundAlthough used widely, there is limited evidence of the BioMedical Admissions Test's (BMAT) predictive validity and incremental validity over prior educational attainment (PEA). We investigated BMAT's predictive and incremental validity for performance in two undergraduate medical schools, Imperial College School of Medicine (ICSM), UK, and Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine), Singapore. Our secondary goal was to compare the evidence collected with published evidence relating to comparable tools.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of four ICSM (1188 students, entering 2010–2013) and three LKCMedicine cohorts (222 students, 2013–2015). We investigated associations between BMAT Section 1 (‘Thinking Skills’), Section 2 (‘Scientific Knowledge and Applications’) and Section 3a (‘Writing Task’) scores, with written and clinical assessment performance across all programme years. Incremental validity was investigated over PEA (A‐levels) in a subset of ICSM students.ResultsWhen BMAT sections were investigated independently, Section 2 scores predicted performance on all written assessments in both institutions with mainly small effect sizes (standardised coefficient ranges: ICSM: 0.08–0.19; LKCMedicine: 0.22–0.36). Section 1 scores predicted Years 5 and 6 written assessment performance at ICSM (0.09–0.14) but nothing at LKCMedicine. Section 3a scores only predicted Year 5 clinical assessment performance at ICSM with a coefficient <0.1. There were no positive associations with standardised coefficients >0.1 between BMAT performance and clinical assessment performance. Multivariable regressions confirmed that Section 2 scores were the most predictive. We found no clear evidence of incremental validity for any BMAT section scores over A‐level grades.DiscussionSchools who wish to assess scientific knowledge independently of A‐levels may find BMAT Section 2 useful. Comparison with previous studies indicates that, overall, BMAT seems less useful than comparable tools. Larger scale studies are needed. Broader questions regarding why institutions adopt certain admissions tests, including those with little evidence, need consideration.

Academic and non-academic predictors of academic performance in medical school: an exploratory cohort study

BackgroundMedical schools should also evaluate applicants’ non-academic characteristics in the search for successful students and future physicians, but ideal non-academic criteria have not yet been found. We followed two successive generations of medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine (USSM) to assess both academic and non-academic constructs as predictors of academic performance, defined as medical school grade point average (GPA). We also interviewed some of the participants to gain additional insight for future studies.MethodsWe measured study GPA in first and last year, as well as attitudes towards science, motivation, emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and perceived personal incompetence in first year. We also obtained their scores on existing medical school enrollment criteria, the State Graduation Exam (SGE) and high-school GPA. Regression models were constructed for predictors of GPA in the last year of medical school. Four structured pilot interviews were conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of necessary traits for medical school and later practice.ResultsRegression analysis showed that only SGE predicted final academic performance in medical school (β=0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.06-0.64), while none of the non-academic constructs we assessed predicted this outcome of education. The two generations did not significantly differ in any variable except that intrinsic motivation was higher in the generation that enrolled in 2011 (OR=1.47, 95%CI=1.12-1.93, P=0.005).DiscussionNone of the non-academic constructs predicted academic performance in medical school. Their use as selection criteria may not be warranted as they could impact the academic quality of enrolling medical students.

Investigating the Effects of Premedical Experiences on Medical Student Neuroanatomy Self‐Efficacy

One key issue in medical education is medical student fear of learning and applying neuroanatomy called neurophobia. In a previous study, we found a negative correlation between neurophobia and neuroanatomy self‐efficacy (one’s confidence in their ability to complete neuroanatomy tasks). Our findings suggest increasing neuroanatomy self‐efficacy may reduce one’s neurophobia. Additionally, the literature shows self‐efficacy improves academic achievement and clinical performance in medical school. It is unknown whether experiences before medical school may later influence medical student neuroanatomy self‐efficacy. This study aims to fill this literature gap by isolating which premedical experiences most significantly influence neuroanatomy self‐efficacy. We hypothesize medical students with premedical neuroanatomy‐specific experience will exhibit greater neuroanatomy self‐efficacy than students without this experience.Instrumentation to measure neuroanatomy self‐efficacy and categorize premedical experiences was developed and administered to medical students (n=233). Premedical experiences were categorized as: neuroscience (NSC), neuroanatomy (NAC), neuroscience and neuroanatomy (NSAC), cadaveric gross anatomy (GR), or anatomy and physiology (AP). An analysis of variance with a Tukey’s post‐hoc test was performed to isolate which premedical experience(s) showed significant differences in neuroanatomy self‐efficacy compared to students with no previous experience. All statistical tests were performed at the p=0.05 level. IRB approval was obtained.Data analysis showed indirect premedical neuroanatomy exposure as part of a premedical gross anatomy course (GR) resulted in greater neuroanatomy self‐efficacy (p=0.01, Cohen’s d= 0.50) compared to students with no previous experience. Interestingly, enrollment in a premedical molecular neuroscience (NSC) or neuroanatomy (NAC) course individually did not show an increase in neuroanatomy self‐efficacy. Only medical students with both premedical NSC and NAC experiences (NSAC) demonstrated higher neuroanatomy self‐efficacy than students with no premedical experience (p= 0.001, Cohen’s d= 0.52).Premedical exposure to neuroanatomy as part of a gross anatomy course (GR) or enrollment in both premedical neuroanatomy andneuroscience courses (NSAC) appears to be associated with higher neuroanatomy self‐efficacy in medical students. Considering the decline in neurologists, and fewer medical students choosing neurology, these findings support youth STEM initiatives to provide increased access to both neuroscience and neuroanatomy experiences along with cadaveric gross anatomy.

Psychiatry Residency Directors' Attitudes Toward and Uses of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation and Other Potential Tools for Residency Selection.

A survey was conducted to determine US psychiatry residency directors' attitudes regarding current measures of medical student performance and their preferences for the future. A team of psychiatry medical student educators and residency program directors developed a 23-question survey. In July 2021, links to the survey were sent out to all program directors registered with the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training. Seventy program directors out of 223 initiated the survey, resulting in a response rate of 31.4%. Forty percent of respondents reported that the most important use of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is in screening out applicants for interviews, and only 26.1% reported that the MSPE in its current form could be trusted to provide a valid and reliable assessment of a student's medical school performance. Most respondents agreed that in the absence of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 numerical scores, the existing MSPE format/content requirements should be modified, use a set of ranking categories that are uniform across all medical schools, and be supplemented with additional measures of the student's character and ability specific to psychiatry. US psychiatry program directors are eager for change when it comes to the MSPE and how it reports rankings, grades, and professionalism. The transition of the USMLE step 1 score reporting to pass/fail presents an opportunity to pursue this change and for stakeholders from all medical specialties to work together toward a shared goal of an improved residency selection process.

Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors.

Postgraduate physician-scientist training programs (PSTPs) enhance the experiences of physician-scientist trainees following medical school graduation. PSTPs usually span residency and fellowship training, but this varies widely by institution. Applicant competitiveness for these programs would be enhanced, and unnecessary trainee anxiety relieved, by a clear understanding of what factors define a successful PSTP matriculant. Such information would also be invaluable to PSTP directors and would allow benchmarking of their admissions processes with peer programs. We conducted a survey of PSTP directors across the US to understand the importance they placed on components of PSTP applications. Of 41 survey respondents, most were from internal medicine and pediatrics residency programs. Of all components in the application, two elements were considered very important by a majority of PSTP directors: (a) having one or more first-author publications and (b) the thesis advisor’s letter. Less weight was consistently placed on factors often considered more relevant for non-physician-scientist postgraduate applicants — such as US Medical Licensing Examination scores, awards, and leadership activities. The data presented here highlight important metrics for PSTP applicants and directors and suggest that indicators of scientific productivity and commitment to research outweigh traditional quantitative measures of medical school performance.

Identification des facteurs associés à la réussite aux examens cliniques objectifs et structurés dans la faculté de médecine de Rouen

ContextObjective structured clinical examination (OSCE) became a national exam at the end of medical studies in France. The aim of this study was to identify the predictive factors for success at OSCEs. MethodsAurvey query after the OSCEs was completed by fifth-year medicine students at Rouen Uuniversity.. Data on continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Data on quantitative variables were compared using the Spearman's correlation. ResultsTwo hundred and thirty-nine students, i.e., 98.7 % of the students, responded to the query. The median (IQR 25–75) OSCE score was 13.6/20 (12.5–14.2). Students’ personal factors significantly associated with a higher OSCE performance were female sex (median score of 13.7 versus 13.4; P=0.03) and good health during the clerkship (median score of 13.6 versus 12.6; P=0.02). A higher OSCE performance was associated with an increased number (≥6) of medicine clerkships (median score of 13.8 versus 13.3; P=0.02) and a decreased number (<3) of surgery clerkships (median score of 13.7 versus 12.9; P=0.009). There was no correlation between the OSCE score and medical school performance (Spearman's correlation, r=0.24). ConclusionHomogenization of student's clerkships, assistance to students with health problems seem to be teaching approaches to promote success at OSCEs.

Differential attainment at MRCS according to gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic factors: a retrospective cohort study.

SummaryObjectiveA recent independent review on diversity and inclusivity highlighted concerns that barriers to surgical career progression exist for some groups of individuals and not others. Group-level differences in performance at the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) examinations have been identified but are yet to be investigated. We aimed to characterise the relationship between sociodemographic differences and performance at MRCS.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSecondary care.ParticipantsAll UK MRCS candidates attempting Part A (n = 5780) and Part B (n = 2600) between 2013 and 2019 with linked sociodemographic data in the UK Medical Education Database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk).Main outcome measuresChi-square tests established univariate associations with MRCS performance. Multiple logistic regression identified independent predictors of success, adjusted for medical school performance.ResultsStatistically significant differences in MRCS pass rates were found according to gender, ethnicity, age, graduate status, educational background and socioeconomic status (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for prior academic attainment, being male (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87–2.92) or a non-graduate (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44–2.74) were independent predictors of MRCS Part A success and being a non-graduate (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.15–2.71) and having attended a fee-paying school (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08–2.10) were independent predictors of Part B success. Black and minority ethnic groups were significantly less likely to pass MRCS Part B at their first attempt (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–0.92 for Black candidates and OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35–0.69 for Asian candidates) compared to White candidates.ConclusionsThere is significant group-level differential attainment at MRCS, likely to represent the accumulation of privilege and disadvantage experienced by individuals throughout their education and training. Those leading surgical education now have a responsibility to identify and address the causes of these attainment differences.

Weekly near-peer tutoring sessions improve students’ performance on basic medical sciences and USMLE Step1 examinations

Purpose This study examined the relationship between attendance at weekly near-peer tutoring (NPT) sessions offered in the second year of medical school and academic performance on basic science and USMLE Step 1 examinations. Methods Twenty-four weekly NPT sessions were delivered across all modules in the second year of medical school. Attendance of the sessions was recorded and students were divided into three groups: high (16–24 sessions), moderate (7–15 sessions), and low-no (0–6 sessions) attendance groups. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to determine the relationship between students’ frequency of attendance and their performance on overall basic sciences, two NBME CBSEs, and USMLE Step 1 examinations. Students’ academic performance was also analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc test (p < 0.05) to compare differences between the three groups. Results Pearson correlation analyses revealed that attending peer tutoring sessions was significantly correlated with students’ performance in overall basic sciences, CBSE mid-year, CBSE final, and USMLE Step 1 examinations. The high attendance groups significantly outperformed the low-no attendance groups on overall basic sciences (p = 0.007), CBSE mid-year (p < 0.001), CBSE final (p < 0.018), and USMLE Step 1 (p = 0.048) examinations. Conclusions Attending NPT sessions are significantly correlated with students’ performance on basic sciences and on USMLE Step1 examinations. Attendance of weekly NPT sessions is a valuable experience for M2 students.

The importance of personality traits for predicting clinical clerkship grades and USMLE scores

Background: Important aspects of medical school success are thought to rely on non-cognitive attributes such as personality traits. Methods: In a sample of medical students who completed their 3rd-year clerkships, the current study examined the impact of personality traits on performance on four measures of 3rd-year clerkship grades and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2CK (Clinical Knowledge) scores. Results: We found that specific personality traits, including conscientiousness, achievement-striving, morality, and self-efficacy predicted multiple outcome measures, including Step 2CK performance. However, while we observed a clear link between personality and success during the 3rd year, we also found that Step 1 scores, not specific or grouped personality traits, best predicted all measures of clerkship performance except clerkship evaluations and, as expected, best predicted Step 2CK performance. Additionally, we created a composite personality profile for our sample by averaging the high and low scores of the Big Five personality trait scales and their subscales. However, this personality composite, which included the traits agreeableness, cooperation, Conscientiousness, and cautiousness, did not predict any of our outcome measures. Conclusions: These findings indicate that personality traits individually and in combination predict 3rd year medical school success, especially when performance may rely less on intellectual prowess, and more on personality factors. Importantly, however, Step 1 scores were usually much better predictors not only of Step 2CK and shelf exam performance, but even overall clerkship grades and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) performance. We hope these results can be used to help clerkship directors and faculty understand that personality factors impact medical school performance and that they should be considered when evaluating the more non-cognitive aspects of student achievement.

Perception of educational environment with an assessment of motivational learning strategies and emotional intelligence as factors affecting medical students' academic achievement.

This study aimed to investigate how medical students perceive their educational environment, as well as the implications of motivation, learning strategies, and the factor of emotional intelligence on academic achievement. In a cross-sectional study, 3384 undergraduate students were recruited from randomly selected Egyptian medical colleges. Students from second to final year, taking fundamental and clinical courses and, at a minimum, three professional exams, were enrolled and subjected to the Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure scale, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, and Emotional intelligence questionnaire. The overall mean age of the studied students was 21.42 ± 1.61 years. Females represented 63.5%, rural residents were 52.2% and students with enough income represented 88.0%. The traditional system adopted 28.4% of the students versus 71.6% in the integrated system. Linear regression using path analysis was conducted to study the predictors of academic achievement, and it revealed that motivation was the highly significant predictor of academic achievement (β = 2.68, CI95%:2.35-3.05, P < 0.001), followed by learning (β = 1.09, CI95%:0.80-1.41, P < 0.001), emotional intelligence (β = 0.92, CI95%:0.87-0.97, P < 0.001), and the educational environment (β = 0.14, CI95%:0.13-0.15, P < 0.001). The study's findings have implications for medical educators trying to understand the personal factors that influence learning and performance in medical school. Students' motivation was the highly significant predictor of academic achievement followed by learning, emotional intelligence, and educational environment. Perception of the learning environment had improved because of the integrated student-centered system, which fosters motivation and emotional intelligence. To improve learners' EI, optimal learning, and educational outcomes, the EI components can be taught and fostered.

Interview experience, post-interview communication, and gender-based differences in the integrated vascular surgery residencymatch.

Integrated vascular surgery residency (IVSR) applicant perspective about the match process has been rarely studied, yet this has important implications on trainee recruitment. We sought to better understand the nature of the interview process and post-interview communication and its impact on students' ranking choices. A voluntary and anonymous survey was sent to students who matched to IVSR in 2020, inquiring about interviews, post-interview communications, and factors influencing students' rank lists. Seventy of the 73 matched students completed the survey (96% response rate; 23 female and 47 male respondents). Applicants reported they were asked questions about other programs of interest (81.4%), top choice programs (65.7%), marital status (32.9%), family planning (7.1%), and religion (1.4%) during interviews. Female applicants were more frequently asked questions about family planning (17.4% vs 2.1%; P< .01) and marital status (52.5% vs 23.4%; P< .01) compared with male applicants. After interviews, 92.9% of applicants notified their top choice program of their ranking preference. Of applicants, 61.4% received post-interview communication with regards to ranking from at least one program, initiated by program directors in 81.3% of instances. Among these applicants, 58.1% reported that the post-interview communication had an impact on their rank list, and 46.5% matched at a program by which they were contacted. Of applicants, 5.7% were asked by a program to reveal their ranking of the program, and 11.4% were promised by a program to be ranked first if the applicant reciprocally ranked them first. Female and male applicants weighed program culture, operative volume, mentorship, and prestige equally in making their rank list. Male applicants weighed the sub-internship experience more significantly; however, female applicants weighed the sub-internship experience, personal relationships in certain cities, dedicated professional development years, and large female representation in the program more heavily (P< .02). This study provides insight into the interview experience and impactful factors for the vascular surgery match. Both female and male applicants were asked a high number of questions about personal matters unrelated to medical school performance. Female applicants, however, experienced a higher proportion of these instances, particularly regarding family planning. These findings demonstrate the factors that are important to applicants in the matchprocess and raises awareness of potential challenges in the interview and recruitment process.

Course Review: Doctors Academy Basic Sciences and Clinical Application for the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons Part A Course.

The Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS part A and B) is a mandatory examination that is required by all trainees to enter the surgical speciality training programme in the United Kingdom. Students and clinicians alike often find it a struggle to succeed in passing these exams given the breadth and depth of knowledge required across a spectrum of surgical sciences. There are several factors contributing to success, including ethnic background, number of attempts, and medical school performance. Studies have also shown that a marker of success for Part B was influenced by the Part A performance. During the COVID-19 peak, the MRCS Part A written exam has had its format changed to an online exam reflecting the policy surrounding social distancing. Due to this, the pass mark has become more difficult to attain compared to traditional face-to-face settings. As such, many trainees are finding it more difficult to succeed in the exam, leading to more emphasis on more thorough preparation for exams. This can be in the form of courses, textbooks, and using more of the online question banks.The Basic Sciences and Clinical Application for MRCS A Course is organised by the Doctors Academy group and details an intensive and interactive three-day revision course held intermittently throughout the year in Cardiff, Wales multiple times a year. Delivered by an expert faculty, it aims to provide maximum preparation in the lead up to the MRCS Part A exam with emphasis on retaining high-yield knowledge and application of key exam revision techniques. We reviewed the post-course surveys from 2019 to 2021 and found that the majority of attendees found the course content to be excellent and relevant to the exams. These questions were a mandatory part of the course and reflect a variety of training grades from foundation to core training/speciality training (CT1/2 to ST1/2). Overall, candidates found that this course aided their exam preparation immensely and contributed to passing.

EP.TU.6The Impact of Disability on Performance in the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons examination (MRCS)

Abstract Aims The number of medical students and doctors with disabilities is increasing, however there is a paucity of data on the performance of doctors with registered disabilities in the postgraduate environment. To address this gap in knowledge, we assessed the impact of disabilities on performance in the MRCS. Methods All UK medical graduates who had attempted MRCS Part A (n = 9,597) and Part B (n = 4,562) between 2007-2017 with linked disability data in the UK Medical Education Database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk) were included. Univariate analysis identified associations with MRCS performance and logistic regression models identified independent predictors of success. Results Candidates with registered disabilities had lower MRCS Part A pass rates (46.3% vs 59.8% respectively (p &amp;lt; 0.001)) but similar Part B pass rates (68.2% vs 70.9% (p = 0.339). They were nearly twice as likely to fail Part A (odds ratio 0.55 [95% Confidence Interval 0.46-0.64]). When prior academic attainment (A-Levels and medical school performance) was taken into account, there was no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of success at MRCS (p &amp;gt; 0.05). MRCS pass rates were similar for candidates with specific learning difficulties and those with other registered disabilities p &amp;gt; 0.05). Conclusions This is the first study to assess the impact of disability status and type on performance at a postgraduate medical examination. It appears that candidates with registered disabilities perform less well in formal, written examinations generally. Our data indicate that the MRCS itself is fair for candidates with registered disabilities and that the current testing accommodations enable performance unrestricted by disability.