Otolaryngology Program Director, House-Staff, and Student Opinions: Step 1 Pass/Fail Score Reporting

Abstract

Objective(s): To compare otolaryngology program director, house-staff, and medical student perspectives on the score reporting change of USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail. Methods: Separate electronic surveys were sent to program directors of ACGME-accredited otolaryngology programs (Cronbach’s alpha = .87), otolaryngology house-staff (Cronbach’s alpha = .91), and medical students interested in otolaryngology (Cronbach’s alpha = .76). Results: Among the 51 otolaryngology program directors that completed the survey (response rate of 46.8%), 17.6% favored reporting USMLE Step 1 as pass/fail. A majority believed the reporting change would make it more difficult to screen (74.5%) and objectively compare applicants (82.4%). Step 2 CK scores will be more important to most program directors due to the reporting change (83.7%). Of the 93 house-staff that completed surveys, most did not favor the reporting change (61.3%). Over half (54.0%) of the 87 medical students that completed surveys did not support the scoring change, and most (65.5%) did not feel that it would decrease anxiety around residency applications (65.5%). Most house-staff and medical students felt that the scoring change would put non-U.S. MD students at a disadvantage (65.6% of house-staff, 69.8% of medical students). Conclusion: Most survey respondents do not agree with the decision to report Step 1 as pass/fail. Despite its intended goals, most do not believe pass/fail Step 1 reporting will improve medical student well-being and believe it will put certain student populations at a greater disadvantage.

Residency Program Directors’ Views on Research Conducted During Medical School: A National Survey

“…The observation that some PDs will consider research of equal or greater importance than the Step 2 score is provocative. The changing significance of Step 2 is a topic that has been hotly debated of late, with multiple survey studies reporting and blog posts opining that PDs will consider Step 2 “the new Step 1.” 46–57 The sentiment that Step 2 will be relied on more heavily, at least compared with student research activity, was not expressed by respondents in this study. Most likely, the process of selecting applicants for interviews and ranking without a numeric Step 1 score will take several years to refine, and the question of whether research continues to be of equal or greater importance to the Step 2 score will merit revisiting at a future date.…”

Perceptions and Expectations Regarding the Step 1 Score Change Among Surgical and Non-Surgical Program Directors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…After the initial search, 351 duplicates were removed and 44 were excluded after title and abstract review, 4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Full-text review was performed on 98 articles, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] of which 45 studies were included [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 5, which illustrates a flow-chart of our literature search, as well as our full search strategies).…”

“…Twenty-eight studies [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][19][20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28][29]32,33,35,41,44,46,48 included in the systematic review examined disagreement among PDs with the Step 1 score change, of which 12 studies 7,9,11,12,[19][20][21][22]24,28,29,41 1).…”

“…Eleven studies 7,9,10,[19][20][21]24,28,29,32,41 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding the arduousness of the applicant screening process due to the score change; all studies qualified for the meta-analysis ( I 2 = 67.9%) of all PDs agreed that the applicant screening process will become more arduous, with high heterogeneity and low publication bias (see 2, Figure 1), with high heterogeneity among both groups.…”

“…Thirty-four studies 4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][24][25][26][27][28][29][32][33][34][35][36]39,[41][42][43][44]46,49 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding the importance of Step 2 due to the score change, of which 12 studies 7,9,11,12,[19][20][21]24,28,29,32,41 qualified for the meta-analysis ( 3). Twenty-three studies 7,9-13,15-17,19-24,28,29,32,33,41,42,44,46 included in the systematic review examined perceptions among PDs regarding whether Step 2 will become required due to the score change, of which 12 studies 7,…”