CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Problem and Project Based LearningInnovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and Admissions

Performances on the NBME I, II, and III by medical students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the University of New Mexico

Mennin, S P, Friedman, M, Skipper, B, Kalishman, S, Snyder, J·1993·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Problem-based learning curricula are growing in popularity, and questions have been raised about the appropriateness of standardized examinations, such as the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Parts I, II, and III examinations, for assessing students in these new curricula. METHOD: Data on students' performances on the NBME I were analyzed for 508 graduates of the conventional track and 167 graduates of the problem-based Primary Care Curriculum (PCC) track at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine from the classes of 1983-1992; on NBME II, for 447 and 144 graduates, respectively (classes of 1983-1991); and on NBME III, for 313 and 100 graduates, respectively (classes of 1983-1989). The analyses also included data on the students' total Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, undergraduate science grade-point averages (SGPAs), and admission subgroups within tracks. The statistical methods included analysis of covariance, Student's t-test, and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The students who had requested the PCC track but had been randomized into the conventional track had the highest mean scores on all the study variables (for 34 students, 521 on the NBME I, and for 19 students, 551 on the NMBE III). The high-risk students who had requested but had not been accepted into the PCC track seemed to benefit from the highly structured conventional track with regard to their NMBE I performances (467 for 18 students). The PCC students--both those who had been randomized into the PCC and those who had been selected into the PCC--had significantly lower mean scores on the NBME I (455 for 85 students and 463 for 82 students compared with 505 for the 439 students who chose the conventional track), but significantly higher mean scores on the NBME III (521 for 38 students and 522 for 62 students compared with 483 for the seven high-risk students and 487 for the 276 students who chose the conventional track). For both tracks, strong relationships were found among the scores on the three NBME examinations. For the PCC students, significantly weaker relationships were found between mean SGPAs and mean scores on the NBME I, II, and III. For both tracks, MCAT scores, especially in the lowest and highest ranges, were most predictive of performances on the NBME I and II. CONCLUSION: In the short run, the more teacher-centered and structured conventional curriculum better prepared the students for the NBME I, while in the long run, the more student-centered problem-based curriculum better prepared the students for the NBME III:

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mennin, S. P., Friedman, M., Skipper, B., Kalishman, S., & Snyder, J.
Affiliations
University of New Mexico (US)
ORCID
Mennin, S P
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1993-08
Volume
68
Issue
8
Pages
616-24
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012
OpenAlex
W1982405425
Cited by
103
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
Keywords
problem-based learning, medical licensing examinations, medical students, primary care curriculum, MCAT scores, grade point average, at-risk students, medical school admissions, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, curriculum comparison, medical education assessment
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Educational Status, Forecasting, Licensure, Medical, New Mexico, Primary Health Care, Problem Solving, Random Allocation, School Admission Criteria, Science, Teaching, Program Evaluation

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