The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Does US Medical Licensing Examination Step l Score Really Matter in Surgical Residency Match Outcomes (and Should It)?
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores and core surgical-specialty match outcomes has not been well defined. STUDY DESIGN: With IRB approval, we measured associations between aggregate Step 1 scores and other specialty-specific, match-process variables for 3 surgical-specialty matches. Chi-square tests measured differences between proportions of US students and independent applicants (ie, all non-US allopathic student applicants) who matched. Independent samples t-tests compared differences in Step 1 scores between matched- and unmatched-applicant groups. Pearson correlations measured the magnitude and direction of associations between matched-applicants' Step 1 scores and other variables of interest and between Step 1 scores for all match participants and percentage of positions filled by US students (two-tailed p values). RESULTS: Step 1 scores were lower for unmatched- than matched-applicant groups for each specialty examined (each p < 0.0001). Matched-applicant groups' Step 1 scores positively correlated with each unmatched-applicant groups' Step 1 scores (r =.82, p < 0.0001), Step 1 gap between matched- and unmatched-applicant groups' scores (r = .40, p = 0.035), percentage of positions filled by US students (r = .62, p < 0.0001), and mean number of applications filed/applicant (r = .50, p < 0.0001). Step 1 scores for all match participants correlated with percentage of positions filled by US students (r = .61, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Step 1 scores were closely related to match process outcomes and match participation itself, with increasing Step 1 scores among both matched- and unmatched-applicant groups as specialty selectivity increased.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Andriole, D. A., Yan, Y., & Jeffe, D. B.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Andriole, Dorothy A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 206
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 533-539
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006385883
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Medical Education and Admissions
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- residency match outcomes, American students, residency applications
- MeSH terms
- Career Choice, Humans, Internship and Residency, Licensure, Medical, Predictive Value of Tests, School Admission Criteria, Specialties, Surgical, United States, Case-Control Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review