Cited by 179Problem and Project Based LearningInnovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and Admissions

Problem-Based Learning Outcomes: Ten Years of Experience at the University of Missouri???Columbia School of Medicine

Hoffman, Kimberly, Hosokawa, Michael, Blake, Robert, Headrick, Linda, Johnson, Gina·2006·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: To add to a previous publication from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine (UMCSOM) on students' improvement in United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 scores after the implementation of a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum by studying the performance of ten PBL class cohorts at the UMCSOM. METHOD: Characteristics of graduating classes matriculating in both traditional and PBL curricula, 1993-2006, were compared for Medical College Admission Test component scores, undergraduate grade point averages, performance on the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 exams, faculty contact hours, and residency directors' evaluations of UMCSOM graduates' performance in the first year of residency. RESULTS: Mean scores of six of the ten comparisons for USMLE Step 1 and six of nine comparisons for USMLE Step 2 are significantly higher (p < .01) for UMCSOM PBL students than for first-time examinees nationally. These differences cannot be accounted for by preselection of academically advantaged students, increased time on task, or reduced class size. Gains in performance continue into residency, as evidenced by program directors' perceptions of superior performance of UMCSOM PBL graduates. CONCLUSIONS: The PBL curricular changes implemented with the graduating class of 1997 resulted in higher performances on USMLEs and improved evaluations from residency program directors. These changes better prepare graduates with knowledge and skills needed to practice within a complex health care system. Outcomes reported here support the investment of financial and human resources in our PBL curriculum.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.acm.0000232411.97399.c6

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoffman, K., Hosokawa, M., Blake, R., Headrick, L., & Johnson, G.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Hoffman, Kimberly
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2006-07
Volume
81
Issue
7
Pages
617-625
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984927517
Cited by
179
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 13
FWCI
39.48
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 curriculum, USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2, medical graduates, curriculum comparison
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Education, Medical, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Licensure, Medical, Male, Missouri, Retrospective Studies, Students, Medical, Problem-Based Learning

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