Step 2 ck free 120 score correlation

Cureus. 2022 Feb; 14(2): e22280.

Monitoring Editor: Alexander Muacevic and John R Adler

Abstract

In February 2020, the governing bodies of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced the decision to change Step 1 score reporting from a three-digit system to pass/fail designation. Previous studies theorized that Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) will become the numerical standard by which residency directors can quickly sort through program applicants. The goal of this study is to review prior research and identify significant factors associated with Step 2 CK outcomes.

A systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC that included articles published between 2005 and 2015 was conducted using the keywords “USMLE,” “Step 2 CK,” “score,” “success,” and “predictors.”

After screening the initial search yield of 3,239 articles, 52 articles were included for this review. Positively correlated factors included Step 1 score, clinical block grades, Comprehensive Clinical Science Self-Assessment (CCSSA), Comprehensive Clinical Science Examination (CCSE), and volunteerism. Factors such as clerkship sequence and pass/fail grading failed to correlate with Step 2 CK. Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score (p < 0.01) and undergraduate grade point average (GPA) (p = 0.01) positively correlated, while age displayed a negative correlation. Additionally, females typically scored higher on Step 2 CK than their male peers.

The study findings suggest that continuous learning and academic success throughout medical school positively influence eventual Step 2 CK scoring. Performance on USMLE practice examinations, Step 1, and clinical evaluations serve as positive predictors for Step 2 CK scores. Interestingly, changing answers and spending more time on each question during the examination were associated with higher scores.

Keywords: usmle step 2 ck, performance predictors, medical student, test preparation, usmle step 1 pass/fail

Introduction and background

The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) consists of a series of required examinations for medical practice in the United States. Step 1 assesses a student’s ability to apply basic science principles, and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) assesses the ability to apply medical knowledge to patient care situations in a clinical setting [1]. Passing grades for both examinations are required for medical school graduation and progression into residency [1,2].

In February 2020, the governing bodies of the USMLE, the Federation of State Medical Board (FSMB), and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) announced the decision to change Step 1 score reporting from a three-digit system (1-300) to a pass/fail designation [1]. This change was designated to be implemented on January 1, 2022. With the loss of one objective method for residency distinction, it may occur that Step 2 CK will become a more important metric that residency directors will use to quickly evaluate program applicants.

It is important to identify and examine factors that have an impact on the medical students’ performance in the Step 2 CK examination for both medical institutions and students. The goal of this study is to review prior research and identify significant factors positively and negatively associated with Step 2 CK outcomes. Our findings can help medical students, instructors, and medical schools ascertain the variables most likely to ensure successful performance on Step 2 CK.

This article was previously presented as a poster presentation at the 2021 APA 2021 Annual Meeting on May 2, 2021.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC. The keywords were a combination of the following: USMLE, Step-2 CK, score, success, and predictors. Our criteria included articles published within the last 15 years (2005-2020), with the most recent publication in January 2020. Additional criteria specified that selected articles must focus on USMLE Step 2 CK outcomes and include allopathic medical schools located in the United States. Duplicates and nonscientific papers were also removed (Figure ​1). Each publication was reviewed independently and summarized in a separate excel table that was later synthesized to the abovementioned PRISMA flowchart. We compared findings to filter out articles based on the exclusion criteria and resolve inconsistencies. We discuss the impact of biases after analyzing the final 52 articles and took them into consideration when evaluating the relationships between variables. Variables from the articles were categorized into either modifiable or unmodifiable factors.

Figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Variables that can be altered during attendance in medical school until the first Step 2 CK attempt were considered as modifiable factors. These were further divided into individual and institutional modifiable variables. Individual factors include stress, Step 1 score, and clinical block grades. Institutional variables include clerkship sequence, faculty-to-student ratio, and pass/fail grading. Unmodifiable variables occur prior to enrollment into medical school and cannot be modified before the first Step 2 CK attempt. These variables include age, gender, race, and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score.

Review

Results

The initial literature search yielded 3,239 articles, which were then narrowed down to 155 articles after reading the title and abstract. All articles that did not meet the criteria outlined in the Methods section were excluded. This exclusion resulted in 52 articles that were reviewed and agreed upon by all authors of this study. Most of the included articles (47) focused on modifiable factors as compared to unmodifiable factors (23). There was some overlap between the above articles.

Many of the included studies examined variables such as MCAT score, undergraduate grade point average (GPA), Step 1 score, and clinical grades. These variables were similar in that they all were strongly correlated to Step 2 CK scoring. There were also several unique variables that will be highlighted below. The above common variables, in addition to demographic variables, were controlled in many of these studies. At one California medical school, students with objective socioeconomic disadvantage (SED) and subjective self-designated disadvantage (SDA) had lower mean Step 2 CK scores compared to their peers [3]. However, SED itself did not have a discernible effect on Step 2 CK scoring [3]. Pass/fail preclinical curriculum did not have a significant effect on Step 2 CK scoring [4,5]. Students participating in extracurricular activities, such as free clinic volunteering, were found to have higher Step 2 CK scores compared to their peers [6]. Students involved in peer-led tutoring had significantly different (p < 0.001) Step 2 CK scores, but confounding variables were not well controlled [7]. When preparing for the examination, one study found that a larger time gap between the end of clinical rotations and taking Step 2 CK (defined as lag time) was negatively correlated to examination scores [8]. When taking the examination, time per question [9] and changing answers [10] also had a positive correlation to the Step 2 CK score. Interestingly enough, another study found that self-reported stress during the third year did not correlate with Step 2 CK outcomes [11]. A detailed summary of results can be found in the Appendix (Table 1).

Discussion

This review has examined numerous research studies on multiple factors that have been correlated to performance in Step 2 CK. The objective of this review was to identify factors that could be addressed within the timeframe of students’ medical school education, and to this end, we have divided the reported factors into modifiable factors and unmodifiable factors. While there are many studies on these variables, we have purposely decided to keep this brief to focus on modifiable factors. These modifiable factors were further grouped into variables that can be addressed on the institutional level, e.g., curriculum, and individual variables, such as individual performance in practice examinations.

Modifiable Factors

Modifiable factors can be further separated into institutional and individual variables. Institutional variables involve factors that the medical school administration can change, such as faculty and curriculum characteristics. Individual variables involve factors that the medical student can alter or consider prior to their first Step 2 CK attempt.

Individual variables: These include USMLE practice examinations, USMLE Step 1, medical school assessments, Step 2 CK test day strategies, extracurricular activities, psychological variables, time spent in medical school, lag time, and study tools.

For USMLE practice examinations, several official practice examinations are available to students preparing for both Step 1 and Step 2 CK examinations. The Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE) is offered to students preparing for Step 1. CBSE score was positively correlated to Step 2 CK [12]. However, its use as a tool to gauge Step 2 CK competency would not have added value because it is a tool for Step 1 preparation.

The two practice examinations specific to Step 2 CK are the Comprehensive Clinical Science Examination (CCSE) and the Comprehensive Clinical Science Self-Assessment (CCSSA). The CCSSA, a self-assessment web-administered examination, is a good predictor for Step 2 CK scoring [13]. In particular, low CCSSA scores often indicated the danger of Step 2 CK failure [13]. The CCSE was also a significant positive predictor of Step 2 CK scoring [14,15]. In fact, a CCSE score of greater than 90 corresponded with a near 100% probability of passing Step 2 CK [14].

According to research, the predominant opinion is that the Step 1 score has a strong positive correlation with the Step 2 CK score [15,16]. There was also a significant correlation (r = 0.684, p ≤ 0.0001) between scoring higher than 208 on Step 1 and passing Step 2 CK on the first attempt [15]. In addition, for every 10-point increase in Step 1, a two-point increase in Step 2 CK was observed (p < 0.001) [12]. One study suggested that this positive relationship was stronger for males than for females [17]. The timing of the test is also an important variable to consider. One study found a unique relationship in that “students with lower MCAT scores performed better on Step 2 CK when Step 1 was after clerkships” [8]. However, in general, the researchers found that there was no significant relationship between the timing of the Step 1 test and Step 2 CK [8].

Medical school assessments included preclinical GPA, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) evaluations, clinical block grades, and clinical NBME examination grades. Preclinical GPA had a small but positive impact on both Step 2 CK scoring and board certification [10,18]. Second- and third-year OSCE scores also had a weak correlation to Step 2 CK scoring [19]. In particular, scoring well in the differential diagnosis and identification of abnormalities skill subcomponents had a positive correlation with Step 2 CK scoring [20].

More impactful were the clinical block and NBME examination grades. Clinical block grades had a positive correlation (r = 0.517, p < 0.01) to Step 2 CK scoring [21]. Clinical NBME examination grades also had the same positive correlation (r = 0.77, p < 0.001) [22]. For example, every one-point increase on the surgical NBME led to an increase in the odds of passing Step 2 CK by 1.2 times [21]. In addition, failing and multiple attempts on the OB/GYN NBME were negatively correlated to Step 2 CK scoring (p = 0.008) [23].

Regarding Step 2 CK test day strategies, there seems to be a positive relationship with changing answers on Step 2 CK and score [24]. In one study, 68% of students in the sample changed their answer on at least one item, and out of that 68%, 45% of the examinees increased their scores, leading to an overall improvement [24]. Furthermore, the researchers argued that more proficient examinees are more likely to review more items and are more likely to change a wrong answer to the right answer [24]. Students spending more time per question often had higher Step 2 CK scores [9].

Extracurricular activities such as volunteering, tutoring, and club leadership are often completed by medical school students to appear more competitive for residency applications. Interestingly, volunteering, such as that at a student-run free clinic, had shown to have a positive correlation to Step 2 CK scoring [6,25]. On the other hand, leadership training courses did not seem to have a significant impact on Step 2 CK scoring [26].

With respect to​​​​​​​ psychological variables, self-reported stress during the third year was not correlated to Step 2 CK score [11]. There was a negative relationship between self-designated disadvantage (SDA) and Step 2 CK [3]. SDA is classified by the AAMC through a yes/no answer on the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application to the question: “Do you wish to be considered a disadvantaged applicant by any of your designated medical schools that may consider such factors (social, economic or educational)?” [27]. While the AMCAS does not define disadvantage, previous studies consider it a “proxy for psychological drivers of academic performance” [3].

A longer time spent in medical school, defined by more than four years, but not including additional programs, was seen to have a negative correlation to Step 2 CK scoring [28]. In addition, recent matriculants from the years 1978-1991 were more likely to pass NBME parts 1 and 2 (which later became Step 2 CK of the USMLE sequence) [29].

Lag time was defined by Jurich et al. in a 2020 study as the time between the end of core clerkships and the first Step 2 CK attempt. Their results showed that Step 2 CK scores declined with an increasing lag time [8]. Students with longer lag time often took Step 1 and Step 2 CK after clerkships. Students taking Step 1 after clerkships and therefore delaying their Step 2 date (lag time: ~200 days) performed worse on Step 2 CK compared to students that took Step 1 before clerkships (lag time: ~100 days) [8].

Specific study tools, such as using mechanistic case diagrams, a form of concept mapping, can help with the integration of knowledge connected to clinical reasoning. For some students, this technique may also help increase Step 2 CK scores [30].

Institutional variables: These variables comprise factors that the institutional can change, such as preclinical characteristics, clerkship characteristics, faculty characteristics, and institutional characteristics.

Preclinical characteristics are defined as attributes of the academic curriculum for an institution, such as courses and grading prior to clinical training. Over the last decade, many medical school administrations have decided to adopt a pass/fail grading scheme as opposed to a tiered categorical grading system. Some students may worry that admission to a medical institution with the tiered categorical grading scheme will be detrimental. We found that a pass/fail grading curriculum had no significant impact on Step 2 CK scoring [4,5]. However, individual preclinical examination grades did demonstrate a small effect size on Step 2 CK scoring [16].

It seems that school-specific curriculum choices also did not have a significant impact on Step 2 CK scoring. Take the example of an important first-year course - anatomy. The manner of anatomical instruction, stand-alone versus integrated and dissection versus dissection/prosection, did not have a significant impact on Step 2 CK scoring [31].

Studies have shown that there is not a significant relationship between the clerkship sequence and Step 2 CK scoring [32,33]. One study found that IM clerkship characteristics and community-based medicine were not significantly associated with mean Step 2 CK scores [34]. However, variables such as seeing more patients in a day during the third year were positively correlated to Step 2 CK scoring (R2 = 0.47, p < 0.01) [34]. One study also found that students completing IM and then surgery clerkship had higher surgery subject examination scores and that a one-point increase in the surgery NBME subject examination score increased the odds of passing Step 2 CK by 1.2 times [21].

A reintroduction of basic science fundamentals also seemed to have a positive effect on Step 2 CK scoring. Medical students participating in a third-year basic science course at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine scored four points higher on Step 2 CK than their classmates that did not take the course [35].

The faculty characteristics that held relevance to Step 2 CK scoring were preclinical faculty-to-student ratio and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding statistics. Full-time faculty-to-student ratios (r = 0.35, p < 0.0004), total NIH (r = 0.46, p < 0.0001), and per faculty NIH funding (r = 0.35, p < 0.0005) were positively correlated with Step 2 CK score [36].

Variables within the category institutional characteristics include interview style, curriculum and educational policies, private versus public institution, and availability of a BA/MD program.

Studies found that private medical school students have a higher average Step 2 CK score compared to students at public medical schools [36,37]. Another study found no significant relationship between an institution’s educational policy and curriculum with Step 2 CK score [38]. Participation in a BA/MD accelerated program was also not significantly associated with Step 2 CK scoring [39].

Institutions often use interviews to determine best-fit students for their prospective medical school class. These interviews may also shed light on future USMLE performance. A study found that Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) scores were associated with higher mean Step 2 CK scores. They found that a single standard deviation increase in MMI score led to a 1.25-point increase in Step 2 CK [40]. No such relationship was found for traditional interviews.

Unmodifiable Factors

Unmodifiable factors are factors determined prior to enrollment into medical school and cannot be modified before the first Step 2 CK attempt.

Medical College Admission Test (MCAT): Many studies have shown that the MCAT score was a strong predictor for Step 2 CK score [36,41]. Two studies (p = 0.04 and p < 0.001) showed that a positive relationship exists when using the older style of MCAT scoring in regard to Step 2 CK performance [42]. Studies have shown that the specific individual sections - biological sciences (BS), physical sciences (PS), and verbal reasoning (VR) - of the MCAT have relevance to the Step 2 CK performance. One study found that the strongest MCAT section predictor was the BS section (r = 0.18, p = 0.001) [10], while another noted that there was a positive and significantly correlated relationship to the MCAT VR section (p = 0.037) [12]. Yet another study found that all three sections of the MCAT positively correlated with Step 2 CK performance (p < 0.001) [43]. Specifically, Step 2 CK score increased 2.819 points for a one-point increase on BS, 0.822-point increase on PS, and 1.238-point increase on VR [43].

Furthermore, there is a negative correlation between MCAT attempts and Step 2 CK performance, such that having more attempts led to lower performance on the Step 2 CK examination (r = -0.182, p = 0.000) [23]. There also seems to be a negative correlation between the time taken during the MCAT and Step 2 CK performance given that students using extra time on the MCAT examination had lower pass rates for Step 2 CK (p < 0.001) [44].

Undergraduate GPA: Both undergraduate total GPA [36] and science GPA [10] were shown to have a positive correlation to Step 2 CK score and pass rate. When comparing both metrics, science GPA was shown to have a more significant correlation to Step 2 CK score than total GPA [10].

Demographics: Variables within this category include age, race/underrepresented minority (URM), gender, socioeconomic disadvantage (SED), and language/English as a second language (ESL).

Many studies found that older students often performed worse on Step 2 CK [10,45]. One study from The University of Toledo College of Medicine (cohort 1998-2004) found that medical students younger than 22 had an average Step 2 CK score of 220, those between 23 and 25 had an average score of 214.7, and those older than 26 had an average score of 206.5 [10]. It should be noted that the passing score for Step 2 CK was 170 in 1998 and 182 in 2004 [46].

There also seems to be a significant correlation between gender and Step 2 CK performance [17,45]. Studies have shown that women outperform men on Step 2 CK and are also more likely to pass on the initial attempt. One study developed a model that predicted women to have a score 0.34 points higher than men [45], and a study at the Meharry Medical College found that male students scored eight points less than female students [12]. Interestingly enough, studies have shown that men outperform women on Step 1 [9,38].

There also exists a relationship between race, particularly URM, and Step 2 CK scoring. One study mentioned that there is a significant association specifically with African Americans and Step 2 CK but did not explore the nature of that association [35]. However, another study involving 818 students at The University of Toledo College of Medicine did find a negative correlation, showing that African Americans tend to score lower on the Step 2 CK examination compared to their peers (p = 0.001) [10]. Some research, however, does seem to question the relationship, if any, between race and Step 2 CK performance [23]. Speaking English as the primary language seems to have a positive impact on Step 2 CK performance [9], and test-takers who have English as their secondary language often scored lower on average than their peers [45].

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that academic success starting from the undergraduate level and continuing on to medical school has a positive influence on eventual Step 2 CK scoring. Particularly important factors included the Step 1 score, USMLE practice examinations (CCSSA and CCSE), and clinical evaluations (NBME, clinical block grades, etc.). Students can also modify their behaviors during the examination; this may improve performance by increasing the time used per question and reducing the fear associated with changing answers. Interestingly, institutional characteristics such as a pass/fail versus traditional preclinical grading system did not influence Step 2 CK scoring. This should ease medical students’ concerns about their program’s specific grading attributes. Table 1 provides a more detailed analysis of the articles used for this paper’s synthesis.

This review has multiple limitations. First, many of the included factors were evaluated in a few studies, and data were not conclusive. Such factors include campus assignment, overall clerkship sequence, URM status, private versus public medical institution, lag time, stress, and leadership qualities. Some of the above variables showed statistical insignificance, while others were only discussed infrequently. Furthermore, in some of the studies, the confounding variables were not well controlled for by the study investigators. Due to the historically significant emphasis placed on Step 1, there have been many studies looking into specific study tools to increase examination performance. On the other hand, we did not find current research evaluating specific tools that positively correlate with the Step 2 CK score. Further research is needed to maximize performance on this examination and increase the chances for medical institutions to have more successful match outcomes.

Appendices

Table 1

Summary of PRISMA studies

SED: socioeconomic disadvantage; SDA: subjective self-designated disadvantage; GPA: undergraduate grade point average; USMLE: United States Medical Licensing Examination; NBME: National Board of Medical Examiners; CBSE: Comprehensive Basic Science Examination; CCSE: Comprehensive Clinical Science Examination; CCSSA: Comprehensive Clinical Science Self-Assessment; OSCE: Objective Structured Clinical Examination; NIH: National Institute of Health; ESL: English as a second language; MCAT: Medical College Admissions Test; BS: biological sciences section of MCAT; PS: physical sciences section of MCAT; VR: verbal reasoning section of MCAT; MMI: Multiple Mini Interview; FSMB: Federation of State Medical Board; SRS: Student Record System; MSQ: Matriculating Student Questionnaire; MCD: mechanistic case diagraming; SI: Supplemental Instructor; United States medical graduates: USMGs

Notes

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

Footnotes

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

3. Medical student socioeconomic disadvantage, self-designated disadvantage, and subsequent academic performance. Jerant A, Sciolla AF, Henderson MC, Griffin E, Talamantes E, Fancher T, Franks P. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2019;30:1419–1432. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. The relationship between preclinical grading and USMLE scores in US allopathic medical schools. Kim S, George P. Fam Med. 2018;50:128–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. A change to pass/fail grading in the first two years at one medical school results in improved psychological well-being. Bloodgood RA, Short JG, Jackson JM, Martindale JR. Acad Med. 2009;84:655–662. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Academic achievement and primary care specialty selection of volunteers at a student-run free clinic. Vaikunth SS, Cesari WA, Norwood KV, Satterfield S, Shreve RG, Ryan JP, Lewis JB. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26:129–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Formal peer-teaching in medical school improves academic performance: the MUSC supplemental instructor program. Wong JG, Waldrep TD, Smith TG. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19:216–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Effects of moving the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 after core clerkships on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge performance. Jurich D, Santen SA, Paniagua M, et al. Acad Med. 2020;95:111–121. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. A multilevel analysis of the relationships between selected examinee characteristics and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Knowledge performance: revisiting old findings and asking new questions. Cuddy MM, Swanson DB, Dillon GF, Holtman MC, Clauser BE. Acad Med. 2006;81:0–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Impact of preadmission variables on USMLE step 1 and step 2 performance. Kleshinski J, Khuder SA, Shapiro JI, Gold JP. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:69–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Clerkship curriculum design and USMLE Step 2 performance: exploring the impact of self-regulated exam preparation. Fetter M, Robbs R, Cianciolo AT. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29:265–276. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Relationship between performance on the NBME® Comprehensive Clinical Science Self-Assessment and USMLE® Step 2 Clinical Knowledge for USMGs and IMGs. Morrison CA, Ross LP, Sample L, Butler A. Teach Learn Med. 2014;26:373–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Using the NBME® comprehensive subject examinations to assess readiness for USMLE® Step 1 and Step 2 CK: a comparison of US/Canadian and international medical school students. Morrison CA, Smith L, Ross LP, Maranki M, Baker G. Med. Sci. Educ. 2018;28:125–131. [Google Scholar]

15. Predicting performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge using results from previous examinations. Guiot HM, Franqui-Rivera H. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:943–949. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Predicting United States Medical Licensure Examination Step 2 clinical knowledge scores from previous academic indicators. Monteiro KA, George P, Dollase R, Dumenco L. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:385–391. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. A Multilevel analysis of the relationships between examinee gender and United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) step 2 CK content area performance. Cuddy MM, Swanson DB, Clauser BE. Acad Med. 2007;82:0–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Are commonly used premedical school or medical school measures associated with board certification? Durning SJ, Dong T, Hemmer PA, Gilliland WR, Cruess DF, Boulet JR, Pangaro LN. Mil Med. 2015;180:18–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Relationship between OSCE scores and other typical medical school performance indicators: a 5-year cohort study. Dong T, Saguil A, Artino AR Jr, et al. Mil Med. 2012;177:44–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. The relationship between second-year medical students' OSCE scores and USMLE Step 2 scores. Simon SR, Bui A, Day S, Berti D, Volkan K. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:901–905. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Factors associated with surgery clerkship performance and subsequent USMLE step scores. Dong T, Copeland A, Gangidine M, Schreiber-Gregory D, Ritter EM, Durning SJ. J Surg Educ. 2018;75:1200–1205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Correlation of National Board of Medical Examiners scores with United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 And Step 2 scores. Zahn CM, Saguil A, Artino AR Jr, et al. Acad Med. 2012;87:1348–1354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Investigation of answer changes on the USMLE® Step 2 Clinical Knowledge examination. Ouyang W, Harik P, Clauser BE, Paniagua MA. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:389. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Performance outcomes associated with medical school community service. Blue AV, Geesey ME, Sheridan ME, Basco WT Jr. Acad Med. 2006;81:0–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Medical student leader performance in an applied medical field practicum. Barry ES, Dong T, Durning SJ, Schreiber-Gregory D, Torre D, Grunberg NE. Mil Med. 2019;184:653–660. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Investing in success: student experiences in a structured, decelerated preclinical medical school curriculum. Arvidson CG, Green WD, Allen R, et al. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:29297. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. A national cohort study of U.S. medical school students who initially failed Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination. Andriole DA, Jeffe DB. Acad Med. 2012;87:529–536. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Investigating the validity of web-enabled mechanistic case diagramming scores to assess students' integration of foundational and clinical sciences. Ferguson KJ, Kreiter CD, Franklin E, Haugen TH, Dee FR. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25:629–639. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Changes in anatomy instruction and USMLE performance: empirical evidence on the absence of a relationship. Cuddy MM, Swanson DB, Drake RL, Pawlina W. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:3–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Association of third-year medical students' first clerkship with overall clerkship performance and examination scores. Kies SM, Roth V, Rowland M. JAMA. 2010;304:1220–1226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Does clerkship rotation sequence affect performance on National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) clinical subject examinations and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) examination? Gao H, Askew K, Violato C, Manthey D, Burns C, Vallevand A. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29:763–770. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Internal medicine clerkship characteristics associated with enhanced student examination performance. Griffith CH 3rd, Wilson JF, Haist SA, et al. Acad Med. 2009;84:895–901. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Impact of the foundations of clinical medicine course on USMLE scores. Brownfield EL, Blue AV, Powell CK, Geesey ME, Moran WP. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:1002–1005. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Multivariable analysis of factors associated with USMLE scores across U.S. medical schools. Ghaffari-Rafi A, Lee RE, Fang R, Miles JD. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:154. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Institutional differences in USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK performance: cross-sectional study of 89 US allopathic medical schools. Burk-Rafel J, Pulido RW, Elfanagely Y, Kolars JC. PLoS One. 2019;14:0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Academic metrics do not explain the underrepresentation of women in orthopaedic training programs. Poon S, Nellans K, Crabb RA, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:0. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Academic performance of students in an accelerated baccalaureate/MD program: implications for alternative physician education pathways. Green MM, Welty L, Thomas JX Jr, Curry RH. Acad Med. 2016;91:256–261. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Do admissions Multiple Mini-Interview and traditional interview scores predict subsequent academic performance? A study of five California medical schools. Jerant A, Henderson MC, Griffin E, et al. Acad Med. 2019;94:388–395. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Pre-matriculation clinical experience positively correlates with Step 1 and Step 2 scores. Shah R, Johnstone C, Rappaport D, Bilello LA, Adamas-Rappaport W. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:707–711. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting MD-PhD student outcomes. Bills JL, VanHouten J, Grundy MM, Chalkley R, Dermody TS. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21:33–49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Do MCAT scores predict USMLE scores? An analysis on 5 years of medical student data. Gauer JL, Wolff JM, Jackson JB. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:31795. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Association of MCAT scores obtained with standard vs extra administration time with medical school admission, medical student performance, and time to graduation. Searcy CA, Dowd KW, Hughes MG, Baldwin S, Pigg T. JAMA. 2015;313:2253–2262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Examining demographics, prior academic performance, and United States Medical Licensing Examination scores. Rubright JD, Jodoin M, Barone MA. Acad Med. 2019;94:364–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cureus are provided here courtesy of Cureus Inc.