Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Removing or Only Moving a Barrier? Screening Applications with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 2CK Instead of Step 1 May Benefit Women but Not Underrepresented Minorities in Orthopaedics.
Huffman, William H; Ayotte, Steven R; Johnson, Mitchell A; Cipriano, Cara A.
Afiliação
  • Huffman WH; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Ayotte SR; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Johnson MA; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Cipriano CA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37255670
ABSTRACT
Most orthopaedic surgery program directors report using a minimum score cutoff for the US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 examination when evaluating residency applicants. The transition to a Pass/Fail grading system beginning in the 2022-2023 application cycle will alter applicant evaluation in the interview selection process. The impact of this change, particularly on women and underrepresented minority (URM) applicants, remains unclear. This study was designed to evaluate how a shift to screening applications using Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) instead of Step 1 scores could impact selection for residency interviews.

Methods:

We reviewed all 855 Electronic Residency Application Service applications submitted to the University of Pennsylvania's orthopaedic surgery residency program in the 2020-2021 cycle. Applicant age, sex, medical school of graduation, self-identified race, and permanent zip code were evaluated for association with Step 1 and Step 2CK scores using a 2-sample t test. A multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to understand the predictive value of demographic features and medical school features on Step 1 and 2CK scores.

Results:

Multivariable linear regression revealed both Step 1 and 2CK scores were lower for applicants of URM status (Step 1 p < 0.001; Step 2CK p < 0.001) and from international medical schools (p = 0.043; p = 0.006). Step 1 scores but not Step 2CK scores were lower for applicants who were women (p < 0.001; p = 0.730), ≥30 years of age (p < 0.001; p = 0.079), and from medical schools outside the top 25 in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding or US News and World Report (USNWR) ranking (p = 0.001; p = 0.193).

Conclusions:

Conversion of Step 1 grading to Pass/Fail may reduce barriers for groups with lower average Step 1 scores (URM, female, ≥30 years of age, and from institutions with lower NIH funding or USNWR rankings). However, if Step 2CK scores replace Step 1 as a screening tool, groups with lower Step 2CK scores, notably URM applicants, may not experience this benefit. Level of Evidence Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Idioma: En Revista: JB JS Open Access Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies Idioma: En Revista: JB JS Open Access Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article