Cited by 10Medical Education and AdmissionsDiversity and Career in MedicineInnovations in Medical Education

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)?

Andriole, Dorothy A., Yan, Yan, Jeffe, Donna B.·2008·Journal of the American College of Surgeons

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.09.007

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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